Agricultural Marketing Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Science and Technology Policy Office
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Justice Programs Office
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that decreased the assessment rate established for the California Olive Committee (Committee) for the 2013 and subsequent fiscal years from $31.32 to $21.16 per ton of assessable olives handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order for olives grown in California. Assessments upon olive handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal year begins January 1 and ends December 31. A decrease in the assessment rate was necessary because the 2012–13 crop was larger than last year's crop and the previous assessment rate would generate excess revenue.
Effective July 31, 2013.
Jerry L. Simmons or Martin Engeler, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as amended (7 CFR Part 932), regulating the handling of olives grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
Under the order, California olive handlers are subject to assessments, which provide funds to administer the order. Assessment rates issued under the order are intended to be applicable to all assessable California olives for the entire fiscal period, and continue indefinitely until amended, suspended, or terminated. The Committee's fiscal period begins on January 1 and ends on December 31.
In an interim rule published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 1,000 producers of California olives in the production area and two handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts less than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based upon information from the industry and the California Agricultural Statistics Service, the average grower price for 2012 was approximately $1,150 per ton of assessable olives and total grower deliveries were 67,355 tons. Based on production, producer prices, and the total number of California olive producers, the average annual producer revenue is less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of olive producers may be classified as small entities. Neither of the handlers may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the action that decreased the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2013 and subsequent fiscal years from $31.32 to $21.16 per ton of assessable olives, a decrease of $10.16. The Committee unanimously recommended 2013 expenditures of $1,289,198. The quantity of assessable California olives for the 2012–13 season is 67,355 tons. However, the quantity of olives actually assessed is expected to be slightly lower because some of the tonnage may be diverted by handlers to exempt outlets on which assessments are not paid. The $21.16 rate should provide an assessment income adequate to meet this year's expenses.
Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers.
In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California olive industry and all
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, Generic Vegetable Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are anticipated. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California olive handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before June 28, 2013. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Marketing agreements, Olives, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In rule document 2013–16962, appearing on pages 44686–44728 in the issue of Wednesday, July 24, 2013, make the following correction:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain CFM International, S. A. (CFM) model CFM56–5 and CFM56–5B series turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by corrosion of the delta-P valve in the hydro-mechanical unit (HMU) fuel control caused by exposure to type TS–1 fuel. This AD requires cleaning, inspection, and repair of affected HMUs. We are issuing this AD to prevent seizure of the HMU, leading to failure of one or more engines and damage to the airplane.
This AD is effective September 3, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 3, 2013.
The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
For service information identified in this AD, contact CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; International phone: 513–552–3272; USA phone: 877–432–3272; International fax: 513–552–3329; USA fax: 877–432–3329; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781–238–7157; fax: 781–238–7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.
American Airlines supports the NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) and does not foresee being impacted by this AD now or in the future.
Seven commenters requested that the NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) be modified to include a minimum threshold for TS–1 fuel usage similar to the service bulletins (SBs). The reason for this request is that the NPRM differs from the service information. The data does not support the more restrictive applicability called for by the NPRM. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2012–0123, dated July 9, 2012, is less restrictive as well. There have been no events since implementation of the EASA AD and since the latest versions of the CFM SBs. Several carriers questioned whether the data supports having no threshold and if in-flight shutdown events truly apply to the worldwide fleet.
We partially agree with including a minimum usage threshold. We have no technical objections to the usage threshold utilized in the CFM SBs. However, since there are no U.S. operators using TS–1 fuel, there is no benefit to increasing the complexity of the AD. We did not change the AD.
Five commenters requested that the NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) be modified to reduce the applicability to match the EASA AD. The reason for this request is that the data does not support the more restrictive applicability called for by the NPRM. The EASA AD applicability is less restrictive. There have been no events since implementation of the EASA AD and the latest versions of the CFM SBs.
We do not agree. No U.S. operators use TS–1 fuel. Therefore, there is no benefit to increasing the complexity of the AD. We did not change the AD.
Five air carriers requested that the NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) be modified to eliminate TS–1 fuel usage recording. The reason for this request is that the additional record keeping will add cost and complexity. This will be a burden to the operators.
We do not agree. TS–1 fuel usage records are required for enforcement of the AD. In addition, many operators already track fuel usage for business purposes. The creation and retention of TS–1 fuel records required by this AD is not considered an undue burden. We did not change the AD.
CFM and Airbus requested that we delay issuing the AD until mid-2013. The reason for this request is that CFM is conducting additional testing and analysis to further validate the usage threshold called out in the SBs.
We do not agree. We have no technical objections to the usage threshold utilized in the CFM SBs. However, since there are no U.S. operators using TS–1 fuel, there is no benefit to increasing the complexity of the AD. We did not change the AD.
Lufthansa Technik noted that there are significant differences between the NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) and the EASA AD. Lufthansa Technik questioned whether the agencies have differing opinions of the technical issue.
We do not agree. The technical understanding of the issue is consistent, but differences in procedure and policy result in the differences between the NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) and the EASA AD.
Lufthansa Technik pointed out that the specific parameters to record TS–1 fuel usage are not well defined and asked if it is the intention to track fuel volume or the number of fuel uploads. The reason for this request is to clarify units to be measured for TS–1 fuel usage.
We do not agree. The actions are required regardless of the amount of TS–1 exposure. The intent is to track if an HMU has been exposed to TS–1 fuel. We did not change the AD.
Lufthansa Technik and Virgin America Airlines requested that use of earlier revisions of the SBs be allowed. Earlier revisions of the SB allow cleaning or replacement of the delta-P valve. The latest revisions only allow replacement of the delta-P valve. Cleaning has proven effective at eliminating the issue, so replacement in all cases is not required. Also, the general inspection procedure has not changed from the initial release of the SBs to the one called out by the AD.
We agree. Cleaining of the HMU delta-P valve is effective at mitigating the risk of this issue and should be allowed. We changed this AD to reference the following service information to do the inspection: paragraph 3.A(2) of CFM SB CFM56–5 S/B 73–0182, Revision 6, dated March 8, 2012; or CFM SB CFM56–5B S/B 73–0122, Revision 8, dated March 8, 2012.
TAP Portugal asks if the AD includes a usage threshold calculation, would time spent in storage be discounted from the calculation? The reason for this request is to seek clarification on threshold calculation.
We do not agree. The AD does not include a usage threshold. We did not change the AD.
TAP Portugal requested that the AD also apply to the CFM56–5C engine. The reason for this request is that there are many interchangable parts between CFM56–5C and the affected engines.
We do not agree. The data received for HMU corrosion and subsequent engine shutdown have all come from CFM56–5A and CFM56–5B engines, which are used on a different family of airplanes than CFM56–5C. At this time, there is insufficient data to support adding the CFM56–5C to the Applicability paragraph. We did not change the AD.
Air France requested that we clarify the definition of overhaul. HMU overhaul is defined in the Component Maintenance Manual as specific maintenance which may or may not align with the maintenance required by this AD. This could cause conflicts and confusion when attempting to comply with the AD.
We agree. The intent of the AD when referring to overhaul is anytime the HMU delta-P valve is inspected, cleaned, or replaced. We added the following defintion to the AD: “For the purposes of this AD, overhaul is defined as HMU maintenance, which includes inspection, cleaning, or replacement of the HMU delta-P valve.”
Rossiya Airlines requested an increase in initial compliance time for an HMU
We partially agree with increasing the initial compliance time. The intent of the initial compliance time was to allow sufficient time for all of the high-time impacted HMUs to be replaced. The 2,000-hour allowance did not take into account the high-time utilization rates of some operators. The initial inspection compliance times are revised to allow up to 4,000 hours from the effective date of the AD. We disagree with increasing the initial inspection compliance times to 4,200 hours because that does not mitigate the unsafe condition.
Lufthansa Technik noted that the lack of records for prior TS–1 fuel usage will make determination of usage extremely difficult. In addition, this determination will need to be made for all engines and HMUs worldwide. The reason for this request is that lease components, lease engines, and component pools transferred between operators might have exposed an HMU to TS–1 fuel. The exposed HMU might then get transferred to a region where TS–1 fuel is not used, such as the United States.
We do not agree. An initial inspection of the HMU is required unless it can be shown that the HMU has never been exposed to TS–1 fuel. We did not change the AD.
Air France requested that we include consideration for the costs to the worldwide fleet. The NPRM (78 FR 2644, January 14, 2013) stated that there is no impact to U.S. operators; however, European operators would be impacted. The reason for this request is to expand cost considerations to include the worldwide fleet.
We do not agree. The AD only applies to U.S.-registered aircraft. Foreign operators must comply with the regulations of their local authority. The cost considerations listed in the AD reflect the impact to U.S. operators only. We did not change the AD.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We estimate that this AD will not affect any products of U.S. registry. Based on these figures, we estimate this AD to have no cost impact to U.S. operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective September 3, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to CFM International S.A. (CFM) model CFM56–5 and CFM56–5B series turbofan engines with any of the hydro-mechanical unit (HMU) fuel control part numbers (P/Ns) in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, installed:
(1) CFM56–5: CFM P/Ns 1348M79P02; 1348M79P03; 1348M79P04; 1348M79P06; 1348M79P07; 1348M79P08; 1348M79P09; 1348M79P10; 1348M79P11; 1348M79P12; 1348M79P13; and 1348M79P14.
(2) CFM56–5B: CFM P/Ns: 1348M79P08; 1348M79P09; 1348M79P10; 1348M79P11; 1348M79P12; 1348M79P13; and 1348M79P14.
This AD was prompted by corrosion of the delta-P valve in the HMU fuel control caused by exposure to type TS–1 fuel. We are issuing this AD to prevent seizure of the HMU, leading to failure of one or more engines, and damage to the airplane.
Unless already done, do the following:
(1) From the effective date of this AD, record all TS–1 fuel usage.
(2) If the HMU never uses TS–1 fuel, no further action is required.
If the HMU has operated on TS–1 fuel, inspect the HMU for corrosion as follows:
(1) For an HMU that has operated for fewer than 6,000 hours since new (HSN) or hours since last overhaul, inspect the HMU before 10,000 HSN or hours since last overhaul, whichever comes later.
(2) For an HMU that has operated for 6,000 or more HSN or hours since last overhaul, inspect the HMU within 24 months or 4,000 hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes first.
(3) Use paragraph 3.A(2) of CFM Service Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56–5 S/B 73–0182, Revision 6, dated March 8, 2012, or CFM SB No. CFM56–5B S/B 73–0122, Revision 8, dated March 8, 2012, to do the inspection.
Repeat the inspection required in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD before 10,000 hours since last overhaul if, after last overhaul, the HMU is exposed to TS–1 fuel.
If the HMU has not been exposed to TS–1 fuel since the last overhaul, then the initial inspection in paragraph (g) of this AD is not required.
For the purposes of this AD, overhaul is defined as HMU maintenance, which includes inspection, cleaning, or replacement of the HMU delta-P valve.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781–238–7157; fax: 781–238–7199; email:
(2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency, AD 2012–0123, dated July 9, 2012, for more information. You may examine this AD on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) CFM International, S. A. (CFM) Service Bulletin No. CFM56–5 S/B 73–0182, Revision 6, dated March 8, 2012.
(ii) CFM Service Bulletin No. CFM56–5B S/B 73–0122, Revision 8, dated March 8, 2012.
(3) For CFM International, S. A. service information identified in this AD, contact CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; International phone: 513–552–3272; USA phone: 877–432–3272; International fax: 513–552–3329; USA fax: 877–432–3329; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008–10–03 for Bell Helicopter Textron Helicopters (Bell) Model 204B, 205A, 205A–1, 205B, 210, 212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters. AD 2008–10–03 required certain checks and inspections of each tail rotor blade assembly (T/R blade) at specified intervals and repairing or replacing, as applicable, any cracked or damaged T/R blade. Since we issued AD 2008–10–03, an accident attributed to a T/R failure occurred. This new AD retains the requirements of AD 2008–10–03 and adds a second, more detailed inspection that allows for an earlier detection of a crack or other damage in a T/R blade. These actions are intended to prevent a failure of the T/R blade and subsequent loss of helicopter control.
This AD becomes effective August 14, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of August 14, 2013.
We must receive comments on this AD by September 30, 2013.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone (817) 280–3391; fax (817) 280–6466; or at
Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5170; email
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.
On April 22, 2008, we issued AD 2008–10–03, Amendment 39–15509 (73 FR 24858, May 6, 2008) for Bell Model 204B, 205A, 205A–1, 205B, 210, 212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters. AD 2008–10–03 required certain checks and inspections of each T/R blade at specified intervals and repairing or replacing, as applicable, any unairworthy T/R blade. AD 2008–10–03 was prompted by eight reports of fatigue cracking of T/R blades installed on Bell Model 212 and 412 helicopters (three failures on the Bell Model 212 and five failures on the Bell Model 412) with a T/R blade, part number (P/N) 212–010–750–009, –105, and –107. Three of the Model 412 failures occurred during flight.
Since we issued AD 2008–10–03 (73 FR 24858, May 6, 2008), an accident attributed to a T/R failure occurred. Because of this accident, we have determined that a superseding AD is necessary to require a second, more detailed inspection that allows for an earlier detection of a crack or other damage. These actions are intended to prevent failure of T/R blade and subsequent loss of helicopter control.
This superseding AD does not apply to Model 204B helicopters because those helicopters do not have the affected T/R blades installed and should not have been included in the applicability of AD 2008–10–03. We are no longer requiring a daily check of the T/R blades because we have determined that the additional, more detailed inspection and the sequence of the inspections provide an appropriate level of safety.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
On February 4, 2013, Bell issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 205–13–109 for Model 205A and 205A–1 helicopters; ASB No. 205B–13–61 for Model 205B helicopters; ASB No. 212–13–147 for Model 212 helicopters; ASB 412–13–155 for Model 412 and 412EP helicopters; and ASB No. 412CF–13–52 for 412CF helicopters. All ASBs are dated February 4, 2013. Bell reported that it recently examined a fractured T/R blade and that the fracture originated from surface damage. ASB No. 205–13–109, No. 205B–13–61, and No. 412CF–13–52 describe procedures for a 3X magnifying glass inspection of the entire T/R blade surface for damage every 25 hours time-in-service (TIS), similar to that required by AD 2008–10–03 (73 FR 24858, May 6, 2008). ASB No. 212–13–147 and No. 412–13–155 do not include this 3X visual inspection, because that inspection has been incorporated into the maintenance manual for these models. All five of the ASBs introduce an additional local visual inspection with a10X magnifying glass of each T/R blade between blade station 20.00 to 35.00 from the leading edge to the trailing edge. Bell added a reminder to operators that it is critical to investigate any paint and skin imperfections should the inspection warrant such action. If any skin damage exceeds the limits in the applicable Maintenance Manual, the ASBs call for removing the T/R blade from service.
This AD supersedes AD 2008–10–03 (73 FR 24858, May 6, 2008) and requires for any Model 205A, 205A–1, 205B, 210, 212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopter with certain T/R blades the following actions:
Within 25 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever occurs first, cleaning and visually inspecting each T/R blade assembly for a crack, corrosion, nick, scratch, or dent using a 3X or higher power magnifying glass and a bright light; and
Visually inspecting certain parts of each T/R blade for a crack or other damage using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass and a bright light, and if damage exists, measuring the depth of any damage.
Before further flight, replacing any cracked T/R blade and repairing or replacing any damaged T/R blade.
Replacing a blade with T/R blade, P/N 412–016–100–111, on eligible helicopters is terminating action for the inspection requirements of this AD.
This AD differs from the ASBs because we include Model 210 helicopters. The Model 210 helicopter has the same part-numbered blades as the other applicable helicopter models.
We estimate that this AD affects 80 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs to comply with this AD:
Visually inspecting a blade (2 per helicopter) for a crack or other damage will require .25 work-hour. No parts are needed. For the expected 12 annual inspections, the total cost per helicopter will be $510 a year, and $40,800 for the U.S. fleet.
Replacing a T/R assembly will require 6 work-hours for a labor cost of $510. Parts will cost $23,048, bringing the total cost to $23,558 per helicopter.
According to the Bell's service information, some of the cost may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control the warranty coverage by Bell. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be accomplished within 25 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever comes first, a very short time period based on the average flight-hour utilization rate of these helicopters. These helicopters are
Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron (Bell) Model 205A, 205A–1, 205B, 210, 212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters with a tail rotor blade assembly (T/R blade), part number (P/N) 210–010–001–(all dash numbers) or 212–010–750–(all dash numbers), certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as fatigue cracking of a T/R blade, which could lead to failure of the T/R blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD supersedes AD No. 2008–10–03, Amendment 39–15509 (73 FR 24858, May 6, 2008).
This AD becomes effective August 14, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 30 days, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever occurs first:
(i) Clean each T/R blade by hand using a mild soap and cheesecloth (C–486) on both sides of the blade in a spanwise direction and dry thoroughly.
(ii) Using a 3X or higher power magnifying glass and a bright light, visually inspect the T/R blade skins, leading edge spar, doublers, grip plates, and trailing edge on both sides of each blade for a crack, corrosion (may be indicated by blistering, peeling, flaking, bubbling, or cracked paint), a nick, scratch, dent, or other damage. Pay particular attention to both sides of the T/R blade in the area located 16 to 35 inches from the T/R blade tip (blade station 20.00 to 35.00—the T/R blade tip is located at blade station 51) as shown by the shaded area of Figure 1 of Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 205–13–109; ASB No. 205B–13–61; ASB No. 212–13–147; ASB 412–13–155; or ASB No. 412CF–13–52, all dated February 4, 2013, as applicable to your helicopter. Also, pay particular attention to the inboard blade butt area near the attachment of the external balance weight and screws, and to any blade surface that was snagged by cheesecloth, as that may be an indication of a crack or paint chip that could lead to corrosion.
(iii) Using a 10X or higher magnifying glass and a bright light, visually inspect both sides of each blade for a crack or other damage between blade station 20.00 to 35.00 as shown by the shaded area of Figure 1 of Bell ASB No. 205–13–109; ASB No. 205B–13–61; ASB No. 212–13–147; ASB 412–13–155; or ASB No. 412CF–13–52, all dated February 4, 2013, as applicable to your helicopter.
(iv) If any blistering, peeling, flaking, bubbling, or cracked paint is detected anywhere on the blade, remove the paint from the affected area by sanding in a spanwise direction with abrasive cloth or paper (C–406) 240-grit or finer, and a final sanding using abrasive cloth or paper (C–406) 400-grit or finer. Visually inspect the affected area for any corrosion or a crack using a 10X or higher magnifying glass and a bright light. If any corrosion is found, measure the depth of the damage. (A digital optical micrometer is one tool that can be used for this measurement.)
(v) If a nick, scratch, or dent is found anywhere on the blade, visually inspect for a crack using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass and a bright light. Measure the depth of the damage. (A digital optical micrometer is one tool that can be used for this measurement.)
(2) Before further flight:
(i) Replace with an airworthy blade anyT/R blade that has a crack or that has any corrosion, nick, scratch, dent, or other damage that exceeds any of the maximum repair limits.
(ii) Repair or replace with an airworthy blade any T/R blade that has any corrosion, nick, scratch, dent or other damage that is within the maximum repair limits.
(3) Replacing a T/R blade with T/R blade, P/N 412–016–100–111, on eligible helicopter models is considered terminating action to this AD.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate,
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410, Tail Rotor Blades.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bell ASB No. 205–13–109, dated February 4, 2013.
(ii) Bell ASB No. 205B–13–61, dated February 4, 2013.
(iii) Bell ASB No. 212–13–147, dated February 4, 2013.
(iv) Bell ASB No. 412–13–155, dated February 4, 2013.
(v) Bell ASB No. 412CF–13–52, dated February 4, 2013.
(3) For Bell service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone (817) 280–3391; fax (817) 280–6466; or at
(4) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference in the AD Docket on the Internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace at Salt Lake City, UT, to accommodate aircraft using Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) and Instrument Landing System (ILS) or Localizer (LOC) standard instrument approach procedures at Salt Lake City International Airport. This improves the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also adjusts the geographic coordinates of the airport, and makes a minor change to the legal description of Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, at Salt Lake City, UT.
Effective date, 0901 UTC, October 17, 2013. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; telephone (425) 203–4537.
On May 13, 2013, the FAA published in the
Subsequent to publication, the FAA's Aeronautical Products Office requested the phrase in the regulatory text “. . . excluding that portion within Restricted Area R–6403.” be moved from the 13,500 foot airspace and incorporated into the 1,200 foot airspace. With the exception of editorial changes and the changes described above, this rule is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Salt Lake City International Airport, Salt Lake City, UT, to accommodate IFR aircraft executing RNAV (GPS) and ILS or LOC standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. This action removes reference to the exclusion of the Price, UT; Delta, UT; and Evanston, WY, airspace area, and the Bonneville, UT 1,200 foot Class E airspace area, and enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted in accordance with the FAA's aeronautical database.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies controlled airspace at Salt Lake City International Airport, Salt Lake City, UT.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 41°00′00″ N., long. 111°45′03″ W.; to lat. 40°22′30″ N., long. 111°45′03″ W.; to lat. 40°10′20″ N., long. 111°35′03″ W.; to lat. 40°03′30″ N., long. 111°48′33″ W.; to lat. 40°03′00″ N., long. 112°05′00″ W.; to lat. 40°25′00″ N., long. 112°06′30″ W.; to lat. 40°43′00″ N. long. 112°22′03″ W.; to lat. 41°00′00″ N., long. 112°22′03″ W., thence to the point of beginning; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded on the north by lat. 41°00′00″ N., on the east by long. 111°25′33″ W., thence south to lat. 40°11′00″ N., thence east to lat. 40°06′00″ N., long. 110°15′00″ W., thence southwest to lat. 39°33′00″ N., long. 110°55′00″ W., thence southwest to lat. 39°04′00″ N., long. 112°27′30″ W., thence northwest to lat. 39°48′00″ N., long. 112°50′00″ W., thence west via lat. 39°48′00″ N., to the east edge of Restricted Area R–6402A, and on the west by the east edge of Restricted Area R–6402A, R–6402B and R–6406A and long. 113°00′03″ W., excluding that portion within Restricted Area R–6403; that airspace east of Salt Lake City extending upward from 11,000 feet MSL bounded on the northwest by the southeast edge of V–32, on the southeast by the northwest edge of V–235, on the southwest by the northeast edge of V–101 and on the west by long. 111°25′33″ W.; that airspace southeast of Salt Lake City extending upward from 13,500 feet MSL bounded on the northeast by the southwest edge of V–484, on the south by the north edge of V–200 and on the west by long. 111°25′33″ W.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at Gustavus Airport, Gustavus, AK. Decommissioning of the Gustavus Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) has made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also adjusts the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Effective date, 0901 UTC, October 17, 2013. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; telephone (425) 203–4537.
On May 28, 2013, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Gustavus Airport, Gustavus, AK. Accordingly, segments extend from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 16.8 miles southwest and 24 miles southeast of the airport due to the decommissioning of the Gustavus NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Gustavus Airport, Gustavus, AK.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air)
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Gustavus Airport and within 4 miles each side of the 229° bearing of the airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 16.7 miles southwest of the airport, and within 3 miles northeast and 7 miles southwest of the airport 135° bearing extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 24 miles southeast of the airport.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Final rule.
In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission amends its regulations to provide optional notice procedures for processing rate filings by those natural gas pipelines that fall under the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 or the Natural Gas Act. The rule results in regulatory certainty and a reduction of regulatory burdens.
This rule is effective September 30, 2013.
The Final Rule generally adopts the regulations proposed in the October 18, 2012, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published November 6, 2012, at 77 FR 66568, but revises that proposal in two respects. First, the Final Rule revises the Commission's periodic rate review requirement policy to allow intrastate pipelines with unchanged state-based rates to meet the requirement by certifying that the state-approved rates continue to satisfy the requirements of the Commission's regulations for using a state-based rate. Second, the Final Rule extends the deadline for interventions and initial comments to 21 days after the date of the filing or such other date established by the Secretary of the Commission. The Final Rule also makes technical corrections to the proposed rules.
(Issued July 18, 2013.)
1. In this Final Rule, the Commission revises its Part 284 regulations governing open access transportation service to include optional notice procedures which intrastate pipelines may elect to use when filing proposed rates or operating conditions pursuant to § 284.123 of the Commission's regulations.
2. Section 284.123 applies to filings by: (1) Intrastate pipelines providing interstate services pursuant to section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA)
3. Subpart C of the Commission's Part 284 open access regulations (18 CFR 284.121–126 (2012)) implements the provisions of NGPA section 311 concerning transportation by intrastate pipelines. NGPA section 311 provides that the rates of intrastate pipelines performing transportation service under the NGPA shall be fair and equitable. Section 284.123 of the regulations provides procedures for section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines to establish fair and equitable rates for interstate services.
4. Section 284.123(b) allows intrastate pipelines an election of the methodology upon which to base their rates for interstate services. Section 284.123(b)(1) permits an intrastate pipeline to elect to base its rates on the methodology used by the appropriate state regulatory agency (1) to design rates to recover transportation or other relevant costs included in a then effective firm sales rate for city-gate service on file with the state agency; or (2) to determine the allowance permitted by the state agency to be included in a natural gas distributor's rates for city-gate natural gas service. Section 284.123(b)(1) also permits an intrastate pipeline to use the rates contained in one of its then effective transportation rate schedules for intrastate service on file with the appropriate state regulatory agency which the intrastate pipeline determines covers service comparable to service under Subpart C of Part 284.
5. If the intrastate pipeline does not make an election under paragraph (b)(1) of § 284.123, § 284.123(b)(2) requires
6. Section 284.123(e) requires that, within thirty days of commencement of a new service, any intrastate pipeline that engages in transportation arrangements under Subpart C of Part 284 must file with the Commission a statement that includes the pipeline's interstate rates, the rate election made pursuant to § 284.123(b) of that section, and a description of how the pipeline will engage in these transportation arrangements, including operating conditions, such as gas quality standards and the creditworthiness of the shipper. This statement is generally referred to as the pipeline's “Statement of Operating Conditions” (SOC). Section 284.123(e) also requires that, if the pipeline changes its operations, rates, or rate election, it must amend the SOC and file such amendments no later than thirty days after commencement of the change in operations or the change in rate election.
7. As part of its regulation of section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines, the Commission has a policy of requiring a review of the rates of both section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines every five years. While this periodic rate review requirement is not part of the Commission's regulations, the Commission has consistently imposed that requirement in its orders approving each rate filing by an intrastate pipeline. In Order No. 735, the Commission modified its previous triennial rate review policy in order to decrease the frequency of review from three to five years from the date the approved rates took effect.
8. Finally, currently, a request to withdraw a filing must be filed under the Commission's general Rules of Practice and Procedure.
9. On October 18, 2012, the Commission issued the NOPR, in which it proposed to add a new section 284.123(g) to its regulations to provide optional notice procedures for processing rate filings by section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines. The Commission proposed that an intrastate pipeline may elect to use these procedures for approval of a filing pursuant to § 284.123 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission proposed that, under this procedure, the intrastate pipeline's filing would be approved without any order of the Commission, if the filing is not protested within a specified period after notice of the filing or if any protests are resolved during a reconciliation period.
10. Specifically, the optional notice procedure as proposed in the NOPR would operate as follows: Proposed § 284.123(g)(3) provided that, within ten days after a filing by an intrastate pipeline pursuant to the optional notice procedure, the Secretary of the Commission would issue a notice of the filing, which would be published in the
11. If a protest is filed, proposed § 284.123(g)(5) allows a reconciliation period for negotiations in a structured process to promote settlement of contested cases. Specifically, this section would permit the intrastate pipeline, the person who filed the protest in accordance with proposed § 284.123(g)(4), any intervenors, and staff thirty days from the deadline for protests to the pipeline's filing to resolve the protest and to convene informal settlement conferences to assist in resolving the protest. If all protests to the filing are withdrawn pursuant to proposed paragraph (g)(6) by the end of the reconciliation period, the filing would be deemed approved. Alternatively, proposed paragraph (g)(7) permits the pipeline to amend or modify a tariff record in order to resolve concerns raised in an initial comment or a protest. Proposed paragraph (g)(7) provides that such a filing will toll the notice periods established under paragraph (g)(3) of this section for the original filing, and the Secretary of the Commission will issue a notice establishing new deadlines for comments and protests for the entire filing pursuant to paragraph (g)(3). The intrastate pipeline may request a deadline for protests less than 60 days after the date of the filing. If there are no protests to the amendment or modification and any protests to the entire filing which have been filed are withdrawn, the amended filing would be deemed approved as of the day after the new deadline for protests established by the Secretary.
12. If a filing is still contested after the above procedures are completed, the filing would not be deemed approved and, within sixty days from the deadline for filing protests, the Commission would establish procedures to resolve the proceeding. The 150-day period in existing § 284.123(b)(2)(ii) under which filings are deemed approved unless the Commission acts within that period does not apply to filings pursuant to the new notice procedures.
13. The Commission also proposed in § 284.123(g)(9) to apply the Commission's existing periodic rate review policy to rates approved under the optional notice procedures. Therefore, proposed § 284.123(g)(9) requires that a NGPA section 311 intrastate pipeline whose rates are approved under the optional notice procedures file an application for rate
14. Finally, the Commission proposed in § 284.123(h) to codify the procedures for section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines to withdraw any filing under § 284.123 in its entirety prior to its approval, including filings made under the existing procedures in § 284.123. Section 284.123(h)(2) would make the pipeline's withdrawal of its filing effective at the end of 15 days from the date of filing the withdrawal motion, if no opposition to the motion is filed within that period and the Commission does not issue an order disallowing the motion. Proposed § 284.123(h)(1) would require the pipeline to acknowledge that any amounts collected subject to refund in excess of the rates authorized by the Commission will be refunded with interest and a refund report will be filed. The refunds must be made within sixty days of the date the withdrawal motion becomes effective. A shipper would have 15 days to respond to the pipeline's filing.
15. Comments on the NOPR were due on December 6, 2012. Thirteen parties filed comments.
16. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that it had proposed the new optional notice procedures in an effort to reduce burdens on regulated entities and provide regulatory certainty. The Commission stated that this proposal permitting a filing to be deemed approved without a Commission order under the conditions described above was part of its commitment to continually review its regulations and streamline or eliminate requirements that impose an unnecessary burden on regulated entities. The Commission further stated that it believes that these notice procedures would provide an expedited and less burdensome method of processing filings by section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines which present few, if any, contested issues. The Commission noted that many of the intrastate pipeline companies filing rates and/or statements of operating conditions pursuant to § 284.123 are small and have few interstate shippers. The Commission further noted that discount rate agreements are common, with the result that the pipeline often performs most of its interstate services at rates which are discounted substantially below its maximum rates for such services. The Commission stated that most § 284.123 filings are not protested by any shipper and, if protested, those protests often raise issues which are relatively amenable to settlement.
17. The commenters generally support adoption of the optional notice procedures, although several request clarifications or modifications to the regulations proposed in the NOPR. Generally, the commenters supporting the proposal, including AGA, MGTC, TPA, Dominion, Duke, Calpine, and Cranberry, support the proposal due to the expedited and less burdensome procedure which they believe will benefit intrastate pipelines. TPA states that it is a more rapid process than the existing procedures and will achieve certainty earlier at a reduced cost to the pipeline, shippers and the Commission. Dominion asserts that the proposal will expedite the regulatory filing and approval process in uncontested cases while at the same time ensuring that any contested matter receives full consideration and review by the Commission before a final determination is made.
18. However, Indicated Shippers, Indicated Marketers, and OIPA oppose the adoption of the proposed optional notice procedures. Indicated Shippers, Indicated Marketers, and OIPA argue that the proposed optional notice procedures improperly reduce or eliminate the Commission's statutory responsibilities and the independent staff review that is required for filings pursuant to § 284.123 of the Commission's regulations. Indicated Shippers argues that the proposed rule would, in fact, impermissibly permit automatic implementation of rates.
19. Indicated Marketers contends that, while the volume of protests may be small, this likely results from the section 311 market structure and the shippers' difficulty accessing capacity on large section 311 intrastate pipelines. Indicated Marketers argues
20. Indicated Marketers and OIPA argue that the proposed regulation shifts the burden of proof to shippers. Indicated Marketers contends that this proposal: (1) Lacks any provision for parties to conduct discovery; (2) fails to consider the fact that a shipper's commercial concerns may prevent it from filing a protest; and (3) fails to protect prospective shippers. Finally, Indicated Marketers argues that the Commission's expectation that all matters can be resolved through negotiations is unreasonable. Indicated Marketers contends that the changes to terms and conditions of service of intrastate pipelines (1) may be less likely to be resolved and involve policy issues or operational changes that require the Commission resolution and (2) may be implemented immediately and are not required to be filed until
21. OIPA argues that the optional notice procedures together with lengthening of the periodic rate review to 5 years seem to be tilting the playing field in favor of intrastate pipelines.
22. While AGA supports adoption of the optional notice procedures, it requests that the Commission clarify that those procedures will not apply to rate filings seeking authorization to charge market-based rates.
23. The Commission finds that the optional notice procedures, as modified herein, will provide an expedited and less burdensome method of processing the significant percentage of filings by section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines which present few, if any, contested issues. This will reduce burdens on section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines, particularly those performing relatively little interstate service, and their customers. It will also allow the Commission to devote more resources to cases where significant issues are raised.
24. The Commission rejects commenters' assertions that these procedural revisions would reduce or eliminate staff review of the subject filings or violate the Commission's statutory and regulatory obligations to ensure fair and equitable rates, terms and conditions of service. Contrary to the arguments of the commenters regarding the proposed opportunity to review and protest filings and asserted changes in the characteristics of intrastate pipelines and the natural gas markets, the Commission finds that nothing in the proposed rule, as modified herein, reduces the necessary review by the Commission or the opportunity for participation by shippers.
25. Indicated Shippers argues that the proposed rule would impermissibly permit “automatic” implementation of rates
26. The Commission disagrees. The proposed rules only eliminate the need for a Commission order in the limited circumstance where filings are unopposed. This does not lessen, in any manner, the requirements for approval of filings pursuant to § 284.123, and the pipeline will continue to have the burden of proof to support its proposed rates, terms and conditions. As described above, parties will continue to have a full opportunity to protest a § 284.123 filing. With regard to discovery procedures, the existing rules do not permit parties to conduct discovery, unless a case is set for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. However, the Commission staff does issue data requests to obtain needed information,
27. Further, as provided in § 284.123(g)(1), the optional notice procedures are applicable only to filings seeking approval of rates, a statement of operating conditions, and any amendments thereto, pursuant to § 284.123. The Commission's regulations require that intrastate pipelines seeking approval for market-based rates must do so pursuant to § 284.503, and Hinshaw pipelines seeking approval of a blanket certificate and initial rates must do so pursuant to § 284.224. Therefore, the Commission clarifies the optional notice procedures are not available for market-based rate filings by intrastate pipelines or for blanket certificate applications by Hinshaw pipelines.
28. Finally, Indicated Marketers argue that Commission's expectation that all matters may be resolved through negotiation is unreasonable.
29. The Commission does not believe that all contested issues under the proposed rules will be resolved through negotiations. While § 284.123(g)(5) designates a new structured 30-day reconciliation period after the deadline for filing protests to improve the opportunity to resolve any remaining contested issues, the Commission is required after the end of that period to establish procedures to resolve the proceeding when a contested filing has not been resolved within 60 days of the deadline for filing protests. The new procedures do not put the shipper at a greater disadvantage than the current procedures or reduce staff or Commission involvement and, in fact, they increase the opportunity for participation by both shippers and staff and to resolve contested issues in a new procedural framework. The Commission believes that specifying a thirty-day period reconciliation period will promote settlement of contested issues and increase the opportunity for the parties and the Commission staff to participate in the settlement process.
30. The proposed procedures provide deadlines of fourteen days for interventions and initial comments, and sixty days for final comments and protests from the date of the filing of a pipeline's proposed rate or operating conditions or such other date established by the Secretary of the Commission.
31. OIPA contends that the fourteen-day deadline for filing interventions and initial comments is too short in light of the ten-day period allowed for the Secretary to issue notice of a filing using the optional notice procedures. OIPA contends that it is extraordinarily difficult to discover and appropriately respond to an applicable rate filing within the four-day period between the ten-day period allowed to issue notices and the fourteen-day deadline for interventions and initial comments. As a result, OIPA contends, there will likely be more protests than the Commission anticipates.
32. TPA, on the other hand, argues that the sixty-day deadline for final comments and protests is too long. It contends that the NOPR's sixty-day deadline for protests results in a protest period substantially longer than the fourteen-day period the Commission currently allows for protests to filings by intrastate pipelines. TPA states that the Commission provides no explanation why such an extended protest period is warranted under the new optional notice procedures. Although an extended period may be intended to allow additional time for resolution before the filing of a final protest, TPA is concerned that the process will result in a short protest within the proposed fourteen-day deadline for initial comments and a lengthy final protest at the sixty-day deadline. TPA asserts this aspect of the proposed procedures conflicts with the Commission's efforts to expedite regulatory certainty.
33. TPA contends that a shorter protest period than the proposed sixty-day protest period will help the Commission achieve its goals of increasing regulatory certainty and reducing the regulatory burden. TPA further contends that protests in substantially more complex interstate rate and tariff cases are due within twelve days of the filing and that there is no reason why simpler filings cannot be analyzed in the same time period. TPA prefers a single fourteen-day protest period, consistent with the existing practice of allowing fourteen days for any interventions or protests, and it asserts this would allow for a longer reconciliation period that can be used to achieve resolution. However, if the existing time period is lengthened, TPA believes that a single intervention or a protest period of thirty days to be a reasonable balance under the circumstances.
34. TPA argues that the proposed protest period with its two opportunities to protest will cause unnecessary delay and, therefore, should be consolidated into a single shorter period. TPA asserts that the Commission should consolidate these protest periods into a single period. TPA further asserts that a bifurcated protest period is unnecessary and has the potential to needlessly complicate the process. TPA further asserts that it is not aware of any other Commission regulation that allows a party two opportunities to protest, including the prior notice process under the existing blanket certificate regulations. TPA contends that a single shorter period would allow the reconciliation period to be increased, thus creating more time for the parties to resolve their differences which is more productive and ultimately will foster a more efficient administrative process.
35. TPA also argues that to expedite the rate approval process, the Commission should revise the NOPR to allow pipelines the opportunity to request a shorter notice period if a protest has been resolved within the reconciliation period as a result of the pipeline's agreement to modify or amend the proposed rate filing.
36. TPA contends that § 284.123(g)(7) requires the Secretary of the Commission to establish new deadlines for comments and protests pursuant to paragraph (g)(3) when a filing has been amended or modified, but without making any distinction as to the basis for the proposed amendment or modification. TPA, therefore, suggests that if the rate filing has been amended or modified to resolve a protest, pipelines should be allowed to petition the Secretary for a shorter notice period under paragraph (g)(3) and additional language should be included in paragraph (g)(7) to afford the pipelines the flexibility to request a new shortened comment period.
37. The Commission rejects TPA's request to shorten the proposed 60-day deadline for final protests, and therefore § 284.123(g)(3) adopts the NOPR proposal to provide a 60-day deadline for final comments and protests to a filing under the optional notice procedures or such other date established by the Secretary of the Commission. However, in response to OIPA's comments regarding the time period allowed for interventions and initial comments, the Commission will revise the deadline for interventions and initial comments in § 284.123(g)(3) to allow a longer time period of 21 days for interventions and initial comments, or such other date established by the Secretary.
38. Consistent with the NOPR, § 284.123(g)(3), as adopted in this Final Rule, permits the Secretary a period of up to ten days in order to issue a notice of a filing under the optional notice procedures in the
39. The Commission finds that TPA's concerns about the 60-day period for filing final comments and protests are misplaced. TPA's assertions characterizing the proposed procedures as providing two deadlines for filing protests are mistaken. While a protest may be filed at any time during the period allowed for protests to the filing, there is only one sixty-day deadline for filing protests. The initial period allows intervenors to file initial comments to express their concerns about a filing without filing a formal protest. As TPA recognizes, the Commission proposed the sixty-day period before final protests are due in order to provide an opportunity for the applicant and potential protestors to resolve concerns raised in initial comments and any other questions prior to the protest deadline and thereby avoid the filing of any protest.
40. If an intrastate pipeline amends its filing in order to resolve concerns raised either in an initial comment or a final protest, paragraph (g)(7) requires the Secretary of the Commission to establish new deadlines for comments and protests pursuant to paragraph (g)(3), and paragraph (g)(3) allows the Secretary to provide for different deadlines than the deadlines ordinarily provided for in that section. Therefore, the intrastate pipeline or intervenors may petition the Secretary of the Commission pursuant to paragraph (g)(3) to allow a shorter time period for the filing of comments and protest on amendments to tariff records agreed to by the parties in order to resolve concerns raised in initial comments or a final protest. Accordingly, TPA's request for revision of paragraph (g)(7) to expressly permit such shorter deadlines is unnecessary.
41. If a protest is not resolved within the thirty-day reconciliation period after the deadline for filing final protests, the pipeline's filing is not deemed approved under the optional notice procedures, and the Commission must issue an order resolving the contested issues with respect to the pipeline's filing. Section 284.123(g)(5) accordingly provides that, if a protest is not withdrawn or dismissed by the end of the reconciliation period, the Commission will “establish procedures to resolve the proceeding” within sixty days from the deadline to file protests.
42. TPA argues that proposed § 284.123(g)(5) may unnecessarily delay the rate application process and that to streamline the resolution of protests, the Commission should include a specific procedural method to resolve the protests and encourages the Commission to use the staff panel procedures allowed by § 284.123(b)(2)(ii) of the Commission's regulations.
43. TPA asserts that a staff panel procedure is familiar and affords parties an adequate opportunity to present oral views, data and arguments before Commission staff. TPA further contends that the staff panel procedures will increase regulatory certainty and allow elimination of the sixty-day period referred to in proposed § 284.123(g)(5).
44. The Commission denies TPA's request to revise the proposed procedures to require the use of a staff panel process in cases where the pipeline's filing is not deemed approved under the prior notice procedures. The Commission believes that the proposed ability to determine the method of resolution of the contested issues based on the unique circumstances of each case will allow resolution of the cases in the most appropriate and expeditious manner. With respect to TPA's request to require that staff panel procedures be used in every case where the pipeline's filing is not deemed approved without an order, the Commission believes that use of these procedures may not be the most appropriate procedure to resolve every case. In some cases, it may be possible to resolve contested issues based solely on written pleadings without the need for any oral presentation of views, data, and argument as permitted under staff panel proceedings. In addition, while the Commission does not ordinarily establish formal evidentiary hearings before an Administration Law Judge in intrastate pipeline cases, the Commission has in rare cases determined that such a hearing, including the opportunity for the parties to conduct discovery, is necessary.
45. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that once a proceeding filed pursuant to section 284.123(g) is contested, the Commission's
46. TPA contends that the Commission must modify the application of its
47. The Commission believes that TPA's request to modify the Commission's
48. TPA argues that intrastate pipelines subject to market-based rates should be allowed to file under the optional notice procedures if the Commission subsequently determines the market-based rates for a service are no longer applicable after notice is given by the pipeline to the Commission of a significant change in market power status pursuant to § 284.504(b) of the Commission's regulations. TPA contends that, if the Commission determines that the change in market power requires a cost-based rate to be set, the Commission should allow the company to utilize any of the options available under the Commission's regulations, including the optional notice procedures. TPA asserts that, given the existing reporting requirements applicable to entities with market-based rates, there is no need for any additional filing requirements.
49. When an intrastate pipeline must file for approval of cost-based rates for a service for which market-based rates were authorized, under the circumstances described by TPA, the intrastate pipeline may file pursuant to paragraph (g) if it solely files for that approval pursuant to § 284.123. However, the intrastate pipeline may be required to make such filing in conjunction with other provisions of the Commission's regulations, i.e., pursuant to the requirements of §§ 284.503 and 284.504 related to its other services which are market-based. Under such circumstances, as explained above, optional notice procedures are limited to filings seeking approval pursuant to § 284.123 and would not be available for such filings.
50. The NOPR proposed to include a five-year periodic rate review requirement in the optional notice procedures consistent with the Commission's policy of including such a requirement in each order approving a rate filing by a section 311 or Hinshaw pipeline. Accordingly, the proposed regulations included a requirement that a NGPA section 311 intrastate pipeline whose rates are deemed approved under the optional notice procedures file an application for rate approval under § 284.123 on or before the date five years following the date it filed the application for approval pursuant to the optional notice procedures. Similarly, a Hinshaw pipeline would be required to file either (1) cost and throughput data sufficient to allow the Commission to determine whether any change to the pipeline's rates should be ordered pursuant to section 5 of the Natural Gas Act; or (2) a petition for rate approval pursuant to § 284.123, on or before the date five years following the date it made the optional notice procedures filing.
51. As described above, under § 284.123(b), intrastate pipelines are afforded two basic methods to establish fair and equitable rates for section 311 service: (1) Using a rate based on, or on file with, the pipeline's state commission, as provided for under § 284.123(b)(1); or (2) by applying to the Commission to set the rates by order, as provided for under § 284.123(b)(2). The Commission's regulations define an appropriate state regulatory agency as one that sets “rates and charges on a cost-of-service basis.” The Commission has applied its five-year periodic rate review requirement on all section 311 and Hinshaw pipeline rates, regardless of which of the two basic rate approval methods were used.
52. TPA argues that if a pipeline is using state-approved rates pursuant to § 284.123(b)(1) and those rates have not changed during the five-year period, the Commission should only require confirmation that the pipeline's underlying state-approved rates remain
53. TPA also contends that the five-year period should be measured from the time the rate is approved, either by final Commission order or operation of law. TPA asserts that, in a contested case, the finally approved rate may be in effect for a significantly shorter period than five years and shippers are protected by the refund requirement of § 284.123(b)(2)(ii), but that any settlement that requires a refiling requirement five years from the date of the original filing does not provide the pipeline with five years of rate certainty.
54. TPA further argues that the satisfaction of the periodic review requirement by a cost and revenue study should not be limited to Hinshaw pipelines but also be applicable to all section 311 pipelines if no rate change is proposed. TPA asserts that section 311 rates are often deeply discounted and, in order to avoid needless rate change applications, pipelines with a rates established by the Commission that do not propose a rate change should be allowed the option to file a cost and revenue study. TPA further asserts that if the pipeline demonstrates that the costs of providing section 311 service exceed the revenues from that service that should end the matter. TPA contends that there is no reason not to allow the same cost and revenue study in lieu of a rate case for all the other section 311 entities. TPA further contends that the Commission has approved of interstate pipeline rate case settlements that require a cost and revenue study and that, after a cost and revenue study is noticed, if protested, the same procedures in the NOPR can be followed.
55. Several other parties request clarification of the periodic rate review requirement. MGTC requests that the Commission clarify that the optional notice procedures under paragraph (g) may be used to meet the periodic rate review requirement. AGA requests that the Commission clarify that the approval of operating conditions or terms and conditions of service without changing rates will not be subject to the periodic rate review requirement. Finally, Enstor seeks clarification that the periodic rate review requirement in paragraph (g)(9) will not be applicable to market-based rates.
56. The Commission is modifying its periodic rate review policy with respect to rates based on those approved by the appropriate state regulatory agency for a comparable service consistent with § 284.123(b)(1) to permit section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines using state-based rates to certify that those rates continue to meet the requirements of § 284.123(b)(1), rather than filing a new rate petition or cost and revenue study. Paragraph (g)(9) of § 284.123, as adopted by the Final Rule, reflects this revised policy. This change further reduces the regulatory burden on intrastate pipelines.
57. The Commission finds that this change in its periodic rate review policy is consistent with our overall policy of permitting intrastate pipelines to base their rates on cost-based rates approved by their state regulatory agency. When an intrastate pipeline elects to use a state-approved rate, the Commission's examination of these § 284.123(b)(1) rate elections is limited to whether the rate meets the requirements of that section. Section 284.123(b)(1) permits an intrastate pipeline to elect to base its rates on the methodology used by the appropriate state regulatory agency (1) to design rates to recover transportation or other relevant costs included in a then effective firm sales rate for city-gate service on file with the state agency; or (2) to determine the allowance permitted by the state agency to be included in a natural gas distributor's rates for city-gate natural gas service. Section 284.123(b)(1) also permits an intrastate pipeline to use the rates contained in one of its then effective transportation rate schedules for intrastate service on file with the appropriate state regulatory agency which the intrastate pipeline determines covers service comparable to service under Subpart C of Part 284.
58. The Commission's analysis of whether the intrastate pipeline's state rate election under § 284.123(b)(1) satisfies these requirements focuses on whether the state rate or rate methodology elected by the pipeline is for the appropriate city-gate service or a transportation service comparable to the interstate serviced to be provided by the intrastate pipeline. The Commission does not look behind the state regulatory agency's cost and revenue findings to determine whether they are reasonably supported. Rather, as part of the Commission's regulation of intrastate pipelines performing interstate service, the Commission defers to the cost and revenue factual findings of the state regulatory agency. By contrast, when the intrastate pipeline files a petition for rate approval under § 284.123(b)(2), the Commission makes its own cost and revenue findings, based on data filed by the pipeline.
59. Nevertheless, under the Commission's current five-year periodic rate review policy, section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines are required to make the same application for rate approval or cost and revenue study after five years, regardless of what rate election they have chosen.
60. Therefore, the Commission will revise its current policy for all section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines with state-approved rates which have not changed since the previous five-year filing to allow these intrastate pipelines to make a filing pursuant to the optional notice procedures in paragraph (g) certifying that those rates continue to meet the requirements of § 284.123(b)(1) on the same basis on which they were approved. However, the Commission will require that, if the state-approved rate used for the election is changed at any time, the section 311 or Hinshaw pipeline must file a new rate election pursuant to § 284.123(b) for its interstate rates not later than 30 days after the changed rate becomes effective. This
61. The Commission denies TPA's request that the ability to meet the periodic rate review requirement through a cost and revenue study should be applicable to all section 311 pipelines if no rate change is proposed. As the Commission explained above,
62. TPA's request that the five-year periodic rate review requirement be revised to commence on the date that the rate is approved is also denied. Requiring periodic review rate filings with the Commission is the means by which the Commission can be assured that intrastate and Hinshaw pipeline rates approved by the Commission remain fair and equitable for interstate transportation. The Commission believes that the five-year period established in Order No. 735 measured from the date of the pipeline's request is an appropriate period to allow before requiring a review of the rates in order to determine if the information and data upon which the Commission based its approval of the pipeline's rate has become stale. Regardless of how soon after the intrastate pipeline's rate filing the Commission issues its order approving the rate, the Commission's rate determination will be based on data from the period before the pipeline made its rate filing. Therefore, granting TPA's request to measure the five-year period from the date the rates are ultimately approved could result in rates remaining in effect for a period significantly longer than the five-year period without an updating of cost and revenue data. Use of the date of the request results in regulatory certainty for intrastate pipelines that the requested rates may be proposed to be effective on the filing date and, if approved, the full five-year period will be available.
63. The Commission clarifies, as requested by MGTC, that intrastate pipelines may file for approval of rates or to certify state rates under § 284.123(g) pursuant to the optional notice procedures under paragraph (g) to meet the periodic rate review requirements in paragraph (g)(9). The proposed rules are revised to include the clarifying language “under this section” after the words “either file” in the second sentence of § 284.123(g)(9)(i). As requested by AGA, the Commission also clarifies that filings pursuant to this paragraph (g) for approval of operating conditions or terms and conditions of service without changing rates are not subject to the periodic rate review requirement in paragraph (g)(9).
64. Finally, as discussed above, the optional notice procedures do not apply to requests for approval of market-based rates. Therefore, as Enstor requests, the Commission clarifies that the periodic rate review requirement in paragraph (g)(9) is not applicable to market-based rates. This is consistent with the Commission's existing policy of not extending its periodic rate review requirement to intrastate pipelines with market-based rates.
65. Proposed § 284.123(g)(8)(i) states that a filing is approved “effective on the day after time expires” for filing a protest unless, among other things, the filing is rejected. Similarly, proposed § 284.123(g)(8)(ii) states that if a protest is withdrawn, the filing is approved “effective upon” the day after the withdrawal unless, among other things, the filing is rejected.
66. TPA argues that the word “effective” in those sections creates an ambiguity since transportation under 18 CFR 284.121 may commence without prior Commission approval. TPA asserts that, if no protest is filed, or one is withdrawn, the filing should be deemed effective on the date proposed by the pipeline. TPA contends that the Commission can correct this problem by deleting the word “effective” from proposed paragraphs (g)(8)(i) and (g)(8)(ii) and adding the following at the end of each paragraph: “rates approved under this subparagraph are effective as of the date specified in the filing for approval.”
67. Dominion requests clarification of the proviso in paragraphs (g)(8)(i) and (g)(8)(ii) that the filing is approved after the listed conditions are met, “unless the intrastate pipeline withdraws, amends, or modifies its filing
68. The Commission agrees that revisions to paragraphs (g)(8)(i) and (g)(8)(ii) regarding approval of the filing are appropriate to recognize that the rates may be collected subject to refund prior to Commission approval and to resolve any ambiguity with respect to the effectiveness of the approved rates. The Commission also clarifies the reference in these paragraphs to rejection of the filing.
69. Accordingly, the Commission removes the language following the word “effective” and substitutes the following language at the end of each paragraph: “on the date proposed in the filing requesting approval unless the intrastate pipeline withdraws, amends, or modifies its filing or the filing is rejected pursuant to paragraph (g)(2) of this section.”
70. Proposed paragraph (g)(4) states that, in addition to the Commission's staff, “any person” may file a protest prior to the 60-day protest deadline.
71. Dominion believes that it would be problematic and conflict with the goals of certainty and streamlined processing, if an entity could fail to intervene timely but have the rights of a protester. Therefore, the Dominion suggests that the phrase “any person” in proposed paragraph (g)(4) be revised to read “Any intervenor or the Commission's staff.”
72. The Commission rejects Dominion's request to revise paragraph (g)(4) of the proposed rule. Section 385.211(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, in part, allows “any person” to file a protest to any application or tariff or rate filing.
73. Paragraph (g)(1) is revised to remove the language after the word “procedures” in the second sentence which states “on the first page of ” and replace it with the words “in the.” This revision is necessary to reflect the electronic filing requirements in § 284.123(f) which are applicable to all filings pursuant to § 284.123. The phrase “of this chapter” is added to paragraph (g)(6) after the reference to § 385.216 and paragraph (g)(9)(i) after the reference to § 154.313. Paragraph (g)(5) is revised to add the word “Commission” before the word “staff.” Finally, § 385.211(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations currently requires any protests which are filed to be served on the person against whom they are directed. Therefore, paragraph (g)(4)(i) is revised to remove as unnecessary the second sentence which required protests to filings pursuant to the optional notice procedures to be served on the Secretary of the Commission and the intrastate pipeline.
74. In the NOPR, in accordance with the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Commission estimated that the average annual public reporting burden imposed on the section 311 and Hinshaw intrastate pipelines of making filings for rate approval under § 284.123 would not change. The preparation effort or the substance of a filing made pursuant to § 284.123(g) would be the same as for a filing made pursuant to existing §§ 284.123(b) and/or 284.123(e). A requirement of a pipeline using the new optional filing procedures is that the pipeline make a new rate approval filing under § 284.123 within five years of the date of the initial filing. Since the Commission has, as a matter of policy, routinely imposed that requirement on the section 311 industry in the context of individual rate cases, the Commission does not consider this a change in the burden being imposed.
75. The Commission as a part of this Final Rule is changing its policy with respect to five-year periodic rate review requirement for pipelines whose rates are based upon a state rate election under § 284.123(b)(1). The Commission will only require a pipeline with state-approved rates which have not changed since the previous five-year filing to certify that those rates continue to meet the requirements of § 284.123(b)(1) on the same basis on which they were approved. Concomitant with this policy change, the Commission will now require a pipeline with rates that are based upon a state rate election under § 284.123(b)(1) to file within thirty days of a change in its underlying state rates for approval of new rates under § 284.123. The pipeline may not wait to do this in conjunction with a filing under its five-year periodic rate review requirement. The Commission has observed that generally most pipelines file to revise rates based upon a state rate election whenever there is a change. The Commission estimates that this change in policy may result in three additional filings on an annual basis.
76. As noted in the NOPR, the Commission estimates that a single pipeline may, on an annual basis, use the new withdrawal filing requirements under § 284.123(h). This may result in an increase in burden of 12 hours per year for the new withdrawal filing requirements.
77. None of the parties commented on the burden estimates.
78. The Commission has reviewed the burdens imposed by this rulemaking. The Commission's review finds that the proposed changes will not affect the burden on section 311 intrastate and Hinshaw pipelines of making an initial filing seeking approval of proposed rates or operating conditions pursuant to § 284.123. The preparation effort or the substance of a filing made pursuant to § 284.123(g) would be the same as for a filing made pursuant to existing §§ 284.123(b) and/or 284.123(e).
79. The Commission believes the change in policy to require a pipeline with rates that are based upon a state rate election to file for new rates within thirty days of a change in its underlying state rates would add only minimal burden to any intrastate pipeline.
80. The Commission believes the change in policy requiring pipelines new withdrawal procedure for filings made prior to their approval would add only minimal burden to any intrastate pipeline making a withdrawal filing.
81. The proposed changes will primarily affect the post-filing process and cost. The changes will reduce overall cost and delay for stakeholders; however that post-filing burden is beyond the scope of requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The new optional procedures will provide both intrastate pipelines and their shippers greater regulatory certainty and a simpler process without any change in the upfront burden of preparing and making a filing.
82. The Commission's revised burden estimate is shown below. The revision to the table included in the NOPR includes three additional rate filings that would result from the policy change requiring pipelines to update rates using a state rate election whenever there is a change.
83. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
84. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
85. This Final Rule should have no significant negative impact on those entities, be they large or small, subject to the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction under the NGA. Most companies to which the Final Rule applies do not fall within the RFA's definition of small entities. In addition, the Commission has identified two small entities as respondents to the requirements in the NOPR.
86. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
87. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
88. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
89. The Commission did not propose a specific implementation schedule in the NOPR. The Commission will implement the new optional filing procedures 30 days from the date of OMB's approval of this Final Rule. The Secretary of the Commission will issue a revised list of Type of Filing Codes
90. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirement.
By the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 284, Chapter I, Title 18,
15 U.S.C. 717–717z, 3301–3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352; 43 U.S.C. 1331–1356.
(g)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii) Protests shall be filed with the Commission in the form required by Part 385 of this chapter including a detailed statement of the protestor's interest in the filing and the specific reasons and rationale for the objection and whether the protestor seeks to be an intervenor.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(ii) If any protest is filed within the time allowed by the Secretary of the Commission under paragraph (g)(3) of this section and is subsequently withdrawn before the end of the 30-day reconciliation period provided by paragraph (g)(5) of this section, the filing by the intrastate pipeline is approved effective on the date proposed in the filing requesting approval unless the intrastate pipeline withdraws, amends, or modifies its filing or the filing is rejected pursuant to paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(9)
(i) Any intrastate pipeline with rates so approved must file an application for rate approval under this section on or before the date five years following the date it filed the application for authorization of rates pursuant to this paragraph. Any Hinshaw pipeline that has been a granted a blanket certificate under § 284.224 of this chapter and with rates approved pursuant to this paragraph must on or before the date five years following the date it filed the application for authorization of the rates pursuant to this paragraph either file under this section cost, throughput, revenue and other data, in the form specified in § 154.313 of this chapter, to allow the Commission to determine whether any change in rates is required pursuant to section 5 of the Natural Gas Act or an application for rate authorization pursuant to this section.
(ii) An intrastate pipeline with rates approved pursuant to the rate election in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that remain unchanged during the five-year review period which were approved based on then effective state rates may file a certification with the Commission pursuant to this paragraph (g) that the rates continue to comply on the same basis with the requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Such certification of rates will meet the periodic rate review requirement set forth in this paragraph (g)(9) unless the Commission determines that further proceedings concerning the rates are appropriate.
(iii) If the state rate used pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section for approval of a rate pursuant to this paragraph (g) is changed, not later than 30 days after that changed rate becomes effective, the intrastate pipeline must file a new rate election pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(10)
(h)
(1) The withdrawal motion must state that any amounts collected subject to refund in excess of the rates authorized the Commission will be refunded with interest calculated and a refund report filed with the Commission in accordance with § 154.501 of this chapter. The refunds must be made within 60 days of the date the withdrawal motion becomes effective.
(2) The withdrawal motion will become effective, and the filing will be deemed withdrawn at the end of 15 days from the date of filing of the withdrawal motion, if no order disallowing the motion is issued within that period. If an answer in opposition is filed within the 15-day period, the withdrawal is not effective until an order accepting the withdrawal is issued.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the operation of the Belt Line Railroad Bridge, across the Elizabeth River Southern Branch, AICW, mile 2.6, at Chesapeake and Portsmouth, VA. This deviation is necessary to facilitate mechanical and electrical upgrades on the Belt Line Railroad drawbridge. This temporary deviation allows the drawbridge to remain in the closed to navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 1 p.m. on August 12, 2013 to 7 p.m. on August 15, 2013.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2013–0633] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398–6557, email
The Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Company, who owns and operates this drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.997(a) to facilitate replacement and update of the motor and drive system located in the bridge house.
Under the regular operating schedule, the Belt Line Railroad Bridge across the Elizabeth River Southern Branch, AICW mile 2.6, between Portsmouth and Chesapeake, VA, the draw normally is open and only closes for train crossings or periodic maintenance. The Belt Line Railroad Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed to vessels position of 6 feet above mean high water.
Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be maintained in the closed to navigation position, from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m., on Monday August 12, 2013 and each day from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, August 13, 14, and 15, 2013, respectively. The bridge will operate under its normal operating schedule at all other times. The bridge normally is maintained in the open to navigation position with several vessels transiting a week and only closes when trains transit. The Elizabeth River Southern Branch is used by a variety of vessels including military, tugs, commercial, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with these waterway users.
Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime and are advised to proceed with caution. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies with a one hour advanced notification on marine channel 13 or calling 757–271–1741 or 757–633–2241. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels transiting this section of the Elizabeth River but vessels may pass before and after the closure each day. The Coast Guard will also inform additional waterway users through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period.
This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that govern four Multnomah County bridges: The Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, the Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, the Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and the Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, all crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the annual Portland Providence Bridge Pedal event. This deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed position to allow safe movement of event participants.
This deviation is effective from 5 a.m. on August 11, 2013 to 12:30 p.m. August 11, 2013.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2013–0679] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Lieutenant Commander Steven Fischer, Bridge Specialist, Coast Guard Thirteenth District; telephone (206)220–7282, email
Multnomah County has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, the Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, the Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and the Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, all crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. The requested deviation is to accommodate the annual Providence Bridge Pedal event. To facilitate this event, the draws of the bridges will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation positions as follows: the Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7; the Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4; Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8; and the Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, need not open for vessel traffic from 5 a.m. August 11, 2013 until 12:30 p.m. August 11, 2013. Vessels which do not require bridge openings may continue to transit beneath these bridges during the closure period. The Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, provides a vertical clearance of 90 feet in the closed position, the Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, provides a vertical clearance of 64 feet in the closed position, the Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, provides a vertical clearance of 69 feet in the closed position, and the Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, provides a vertical clearance of 49 feet in the closed position; all clearances are referenced to the vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The current operating schedule for all four bridges is set out in 33 CFR 117.897. The normal operating schedule for all four bridges state that they need not open from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. This deviation period is from 5 a.m. on August 11, 2013 through 12:30 p.m. August 11, 2013. The deviation allows the Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, the Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, the Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and the Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, across the Willamette River, to remain in the closed position and need not open for maritime traffic from 5 a.m. through 12:30 p.m. on August 11, 2013. The four bridges shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR § 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this stretch of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Mariners will be notified and kept informed of the bridges' operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate. The bridges will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure period.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Montana to demonstrate that the SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective August 29, 2013.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0724. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–6142,
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials
(ii) The initials
(iii) The words or initials
(iv) The words
(v) The initials
(vi) The initials
(vii) The initials
(viii) The initials
(ix) The initials
(x) The initials
(xi) The initials
Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are provided in sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in our proposal of May 13, 2013 (78 FR 27891).
On May 13, 2013 (78 FR 27891), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to act on a February 10, 2010 infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Montana for the 1997 and 2006 PM
We proposed to disapprove Montana's February 10, 2010 submission with respect to the requirements of three individual infrastructure elements. The first of these is element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), relevant to CAA section 128 and state boards. The reasons for this disapproval are detailed within our proposal. In summary, the Montana SIP fails to include provisions which meet the explicit legal requirements of this requirement of the CAA. The second and third elements we proposed to disapprove are provisions required by elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), regarding requirements for PSD programs to treat nitrogen oxides as a precursor for ozone as detailed by the ozone phase 2 implementation rule (70 FR 71612). The analysis supporting this action is detailed in our proposal dated May 13, 2013 (78 FR 27891).
Under a Consent Decree that has been entered with a district court, we are required to take final action on this infrastructure SIP no later than July 15, 2013. We note that on June 18, 2013 EPA received revisions to the Montana SIP entitled, “1997 Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule Updates to Montana State Implementation Plan,” which are intended to address the requirements of elements (C) and (J). That submission will be addressed in a timely manner in a future action. However, the impending consent decree deadline precludes the Agency from postponing this final action.
No comments were received on the 5/13/2013 proposal.
EPA is approving Montana's February 10, 2010 infrastructure SIP submission for the following infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law that meets Federal requirements and disapproves state law that does not meet Federal requirements. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 30, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
(b) On February 10, 2010, Brian Schweitzer, Governor, State of Montana, submitted a certification letter which provides the State of Montana's SIP provisions which meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2), elements (A), (B), (C) with respect to the requirement to have a minor NSR program that addresses PM
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of North Dakota to demonstrate that the SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for fine particulate matter (PM
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No.EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0726. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–6142,
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are provided in sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), published on May 13, 2013 (78 FR 27898).
In the NPR, EPA proposed to approve North Dakota's submissions for the following infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM
The approval of the above portion of the January 24, 2013 submittal incorporates the PM
No comments were received on our May 13, 2013 NPR.
EPA is approving the following infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 30, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
(c)
(1) “Major source baseline date” means:
(i) In the case of PM
(ii) In the case of nitrogen dioxide, February 8, 1988; and
(iii) In the case of PM
(2) “Minor source baseline date” means the earliest date after the trigger date on which a major stationary source or a major modification subject to 40 CFR 52.21 or to regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166 submits a complete application under the relevant regulations. The trigger date is:
(i) In the case of PM
(ii) In the case of nitrogen dioxide, February 8, 1988; and
(iii) In the case of PM
(3) The baseline date is established for each pollutant for which increments or other equivalent measures have been established if:
(i) The area in which the proposed source or modification would construct is designated as attainment or unclassifiable under section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act for the pollutant on the date of its complete application under 40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166; and
(ii) In the case of a major stationary source, the pollutant would be emitted in significant amounts, or, in the case of a major modification, there would be a significant net emissions increase of the pollutant.
(4) “Baseline area” means any intrastate area (and every part thereof) designated as attainment or unclassifiable under section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act in which the major source or major modification establishing the minor source baseline date would construct or would have an air quality impact for the pollutant for which the baseline date is established, as follows: equal to or greater than 1 µg/m
(5) Area redesignations under section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act cannot intersect or be smaller than the area of impact of any major stationary source or major modification which:
(i) Establishes a minor source baseline date; or
(ii) Is subject to 40 CFR 52.21 and would be constructed in the same state as the state proposing the redesignation.
(d)
(2) For any period other than an annual period, the applicable maximum allowable increase may be exceeded during one such period per year at any one location.
(c) EPA is approving the following infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially disapprove portions of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Montana that are intended to demonstrate that its SIP meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (“Act” or “CAA”) for the 2006 fine particulate matter (“PM
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0347. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–7104,
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials
(ii) The words
(iii) The initials
(iv) The initials
(v) The initials
(vi) The words
On October 17, 2006 EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for PM
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements related to the evaluation of impacts of interstate transport of air pollutants. In this action for the state of Montana, EPA is addressing the first two elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2006 PM
EPA is also addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) with respect to the 2006 PM
On February 10, 2010, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) provided a submission to EPA certifying that Montana's SIP is adequate to implement the 2006 PM
On May 13, 2013 (78 FR 27883), EPA proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove MDEQ's February 2010 submission with regard to the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). As explained in that action, we proposed to partially disapprove these elements of Montana's submission because the submission did not include any technical analysis to support its conclusion regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and did not to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). (78 FR 27885) However, we also proposed to partially approve elements 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of Montana's submission based on our supplemental analysis, through which we concluded that the existing SIP for the State of Montana is adequate to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The details of our supplemental analysis are provided in our notice of proposed rulemaking.
EPA received one anonymous public comment on the proposed action. The commenter expressed concern about the potential for particulate matter pollution from what the commenter called the “slash and burn policies” of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The commenter alleged that the USFS had created an air pollution violation, but did not identify any particular provision of the Act or the Montana SIP that the USFS had violated.
As discussed in our proposal notice, the scope of our action was to evaluate Montana's submission that the Montana SIP is adequate to prevent sources in Montana from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the 2006 PM
The commenter also expressed concern that the Regulations.gov site was inaccessible on a particular day. In our notice, we provided alternative means of commenting: email, fax, postal mail, and hand delivery. We also provided an address, phone number, and email contact for further information. However, the commenter did not attempt to use any of these alternative means to comment or to inform us of the problem. While we acknowledge the commenter's concerns, we find that the public had adequate opportunity to comment on our action.
EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) portions of Montana's February 10, 2010 submission. We are partially disapproving the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the submission because it relies on irrelevant factors and lacks any technical analysis to support the State's conclusion with respect to interstate transport. However, we are also partially approving this portion of the submission based on EPA's supplemental evaluation of relevant technical information, which supports a finding that emissions from Montana do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM
Similarly, EPA is partially disapproving the 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) portion of Montana's submission because it fails to address or discuss this CAA requirement. However, we are partially approving this portion of the submission based on the conclusion that the State's existing SIP is adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2006 24-hour PM
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law that meets Federal requirements and disapproves state law
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 30, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
(b) On February 10, 2010, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer submitted a letter certifying, in part, that Montana's SIP is adequate to meet the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct Final Rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion for the Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site (Site) located in Perry Township, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and Five Year Reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This direct final deletion is effective September 30, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 29, 2013. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
John Epps, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814–3144, Email:
EPA Region III is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of the Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, this action will be effective September 30, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 29, 2013. Along with this direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to Delete in the “Proposed Rules” section of the
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts Five Year Reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such Five Year Reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
(1) EPA consulted with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the
(2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their publication today, and the Commonwealth, through PADEP, has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL in a letter dated May 1, 2013.
(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the Butler Eagle. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
(4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.
(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:
The Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site (the Site), CERCLIS ID PAD980508527, consists of approximately 117 acres located in Perry Township, in the vicinity of the village of Fredericksburg, near the western border of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. The Site is located approximately two miles east of the Borough of Petrolia and approximately four miles south of the town of Parker and the Allegheny River. Land use surrounding the Site is primarily agricultural and limited residential.
The Site was historically operated as a strip mine, resulting in two abandoned mine pits following the cessation of operations, prior to 1958. Typical of strip mining operations in the vicinity of the Site, the mining pits were cut into a hillside where the coal seam outcropped or subcropped. The pit walls were formed by the working face (highwall) of the mine and the spoil piles were staged away from the working face.
From 1958 through 1963, 55-gallon drums containing still bottom residue from the manufacturing of Resorcinol at the nearby Koppers Chemical Company (Koppers) plant were deposited in the abandoned former strip mine pits, hereinafter known as the north and south disposal pits. Resorcinol, also known as 1,3-benzenediol, m-benzenediol, 1,3-dihydroxybenzene, m-dihydroxybenzene, 3-hydroxyphenol, or m-hydroxyphenol, is an organic compound used as an adhesive enhancer in the production of automobile tires and in pharmaceuticals.
The residue, consisting of resorcinol and other higher polymers, is characterized as a CERCLA hazardous substance but not as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste. Approximately 2,500 tons of material were placed in the disposal pits by Mr. Herman Craig, Site owner Paul Craig's brother. During deposition and during the time the drums were stored on-site, many drums were damaged, resulting in a release of the residue to the environment.
The Site was proposed for placement on the National Priorities List (NPL) on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476 (1982–12–30)), and listed on the NPL on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658 (1983–09–08)).
Currently, the Site is undeveloped, with the exception of the components of the remedy. No proposed redevelopment plan currently exists for the Site. At the time of the Record of Decision (ROD) in 1989, it was anticipated that the Site may be used in the future for recreational purposes. Due to the extremely rural location and steeply sloping nature of the Site, commercial or residential development potential is limited.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Site was conducted in 1983 prior to the final listing of the Site on the NPL and consisted of the following components:
• Hydrogeologic study;
• Surface water sampling study;
• Stream biological study;
• Air quality survey.
Additionally, test pits were installed in 1984 in the vicinity of the disposal pits to determine the extent and condition of the drums containing still-bottom residue. The investigation indicated that the majority of the drums were crushed, broken, or without lids.
Following the listing of the Site on the NPL in September 1983, the RI/FS was conducted from February 1986 through November 1987 and consisted of the following components:
• Biological survey;
• Biota survey;
• Surface water and sediment characterization;
• Groundwater characterization.
Additional groundwater monitoring wells were installed in November 1988 to further delineate the extent of groundwater contamination.
Test pits installed in the vicinity of the disposal pits in 1984 prior to the RI/FS indicated the still bottom residue consisted of black to pink semisolid material with some hardened masses. The north disposal pit was observed to be approximately 1.2 to 1.5 acres in lateral extent and the south disposal pit was observed to be approximately 0.8 to 1.0 acres in lateral extent. Analytical data of samples collected during test pit installation indicated that the source material in the disposal pits was located approximately 2.5 and 6.0 feet below ground surface (bgs). Contaminated soil was also observed in the vicinity of the disposal pits during test pit installation, particularly in down-slope areas.
Groundwater quality data collected during the RI/FS indicated the presence of impacted groundwater in three water bearing zones at the Site; the unconsolidated materials zone, the upper bedrock (shale) aquifer, and the lower sandstone aquifer.
The biological survey conducted during the RI/FS indicated that macroinvertebrate communities located downstream from the Site in the Unnamed Creek were stressed due to site-related compounds. The stress was characterized as a lack of macroinvertebrate species that are typically an indicator of good water quality. However, analysis of tissue samples from macroinvertebrates in the Unnamed Creek did not detect any bioaccumulation or biomagnification of site-related compounds. No stress was detected in fish species within Valley Run and the macroinvertebrate community recovered within one mile of the confluence of Valley Run and the Unnamed Creek.
The total non-carcinogenic hazard indices (HIs) calculated for each of the potential receptors were less than 1, indicating that the there was no excess risk of non-carcinogenic health impacts.
The excess individual cancer risk to future miners, based on potential exposure to benzene in groundwater, was lower than EPA's acceptable risk
In summary, the risk characterization indicated that the overall threat to human health posed by the Craig Farm Drum Site was negligible, primarily due to the limited exposure likelihood based on the current and future Site uses. The evaluation of potential environmental exposure pathways indicated that aquatic life within the Unnamed Creek is being impacted by site-related COCs. Therefore, the selection of the remedy for the Site was based on the Site's impact to the environment only, and not on the impact to human health. The Site was determined to present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the environment as set forth in Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section 9606.
The ROD for the Site was issued on September 29, 1989. The following Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) were identified:
• Minimize risk to human health and the environment from direct contact with contaminated material;
• Control the migration of contaminants into nearby surface waters;
• Control the migration of contaminants into groundwater.
The ROD divided the Site into three Operable Units (OUs). OU–1 consisted of the resorcinol residue material in the former disposal pits and an adjacent contaminated soils containing detectable concentrations (>50 mg/kg) of resorcinol. OU–2 consisted of clean soils that needed to be moved to access OU–1 material. OU–3 consisted of two contaminated seeps, identified as Seeps A and B, located downgradient of the former disposal pits.
In order to address these OUs and meet the RAOs, the Selected Remedy in the ROD consisted of the following components:
• Excavation of 32,000 cubic yards of material from the disposal pits and surrounding areas;
• On-site solidification of excavated material;
• Placement of the solidified material in an newly constructed on-site RCRA equivalent, double lined, fenced landfill;
• Wetland delineation and subsequent construction of a one-acre on-site wetland to replace wetlands destroyed in construction of the on-site landfill;
• Implementation of institutional controls alerting property owners of contamination;
• Passive collection of groundwater using a seep interceptor system with off-site treatment;
• Monitoring of both on-site and off-site groundwater and surface water.
The 1989 ROD indicated that the completeness of the remedy would be determined by using an EPA-approved bioassay test procedure. The bioassay testing has historically been performed on both Seeps A and B as discussed in the sections below.
The 1989 ROD also required that a Groundwater Verification Study be performed during Remedial Design (RD) in to determine if groundwater at the Site would require further remediation. The Groundwater Verification Study was conducted in 1991 and indicated that contaminant levels in groundwater did not differ significantly from those detected during the RI and would therefore not pose a significant risk to human health. Based on the results of the Groundwater Verification Study, no additional groundwater remediation was required.
Historically, groundwater collected by the seep interceptor system was taken to a Beazer-owned off-site facility for treatment. However, that facility was planned to be shut down in 2010. Therefore, from March 2007 through September 2008, Beazer conducted a Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) to evaluate additional remedial alternatives for the wastewater collected by the seep interceptor system (OU–3). As a result of the FFS, the Selected Remedy was modified by a September 18, 2009 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), consisting of the following components:
• Installation of an impermeable cap on the 3-acre, former north pit area to reduce infiltration of clean water through north pit materials (referred to as the Seep A Cap);
• Excavation/fill of existing ground surface in vicinity of former north pit to required grade;
• Installation of bioswales or other infiltration features to direct clean surface water flow from capped area;
• Installation of groundwater infiltration system into deep bedrock upgradient of the former north pit to prevent upgradient groundwater from flowing through north pit materials
• Continued maintenance of the Seep A collection trench, piping, and storage tank to collect contaminated overburden groundwater;
• Treatment of collected Seep A water at an alternative off-site treatment facility;
• The Seep B collection trench would remain in place but valves would be closed so that the system no longer collected water;
• Clarification of the requirements for the institutional controls selected in the 1989 ROD.
The Selected Remedy from the 1989 ROD was implemented from May 1994 through December 1995 in accordance with the September 27, 1993 Remedial Design and October 9, 1990 Consent Decree (CD). The final inspection was conducted on December 15, 1995 and completion of the Remedial Action was documented in the Remedial Action Completion Report, accepted by EPA on April 26, 1994.
EPA issued a Final Close Out Report (FCOR) on December 27, 1995 to document completion of the remedy specified in the 1989 ROD. The FCOR documented Construction Completion rather than Site Completion because institutional controls were not in place at the time of the FCOR. Additional response actions were also required by the 2009 ESD following the issuance of the 1995 FCOR, as described below. The institutional controls were implemented in 2004 in accordance with the recommendations of the Second Five Year Review and the requirements for the institutional controls were clarified in the 2009 ESD. Institutional controls are discussed in additional detail in the Operations and Maintenance section below.
The remedy modification in the 2009 ESD was implemented from May through August 2010 in accordance with the June 4, 2010 Final Design Report. The final inspection was conducted on September 20, 2010 and completion of the remedy modification was documented in the November 30, 2010 Remedial Action Report, accepted by EPA on December 22, 2010.
EPA issued a Revised FCOR on June 19, 2013 to summarize the findings of the 1995 FCOR, describe the implementation of institutional controls, and document the additional response actions performed in accordance with the 2009 ESD.
The RAOs established in the 1989 ROD have been achieved by the Selected Remedy, as modified by the 2009 ESD.
The RAO of minimizing the risk to human health and the environment from direct contact with contaminated material has been achieved via the excavation and solidification of material from the disposal pits, placement of the solidified material in a newly constructed on-site landfill, and installation of the seep interceptor system. Potential direct contact was further minimized via installation of the Seep A Cap over the north disposal pit area.
Furthermore, although not a component of the remedy, the Site is located within the Bear Creek Area Chemical Site (BCACS). The BCACS consists of multiple Sites that are impacted by contaminants primarily related to resorcinol manufacturing and are being addressed by either EPA or PADEP. Between 2003 and 2007, PADEP connected residents within the BCACS to public water and required communities therein to institute public water connection ordinances. The location of the Site within the BCACS therefore further reduces the potential for direct contact with Site-related contaminants in groundwater.
The RAO of controlling the migration of contaminants into nearby surface water bodies, primarily the Unnamed Creek, has been achieved via the installation of the seep interceptor system and enhanced by the installation of the Seep A Cap. Demonstration of achievement of this RAO with respect to numerical performance standards is discussed in additional detail below.
As discussed above in the summary of the RI/FS, the contaminants of concern (COCs) at the Site consist of the following compounds:
• Benzene;
• Resorcinol;
• Benzene metadisulfonic acid (m-BDSA);
• Benzene sulfonic acid (BSA);
• p-Phenol sulfonic acid (p-PSA);
• Trihydroxydiphenyl (THD).
Phenol, m-phenol sulfonic acid (m-PSA), and multiple metals were also identified as Site COCs in the 1989 ROD, however, these compounds were eliminated as Site COCs following the Groundwater Verification Study in 1991. No PADEP Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Substances (PADEP WQC) existed at the time of the ROD for resorcinol, m-BDSA, BSA, p-PSA, or THD and no numerical performance standards were established for these compounds in the 1989 ROD in surface water. Benzene has not been detected in surface water since 1987 during the RI for the Site and has therefore achieved the PADEP WQC.
PADEP WQC were proposed for resorcinol, m-BDSA, BSA, and p-PSA in February 2012 as show in the table below. No PADEP WQC was proposed for THD due primarily to the difficulty in analyzing for that compound. Instead, the remaining resorcinol-related compounds are considered indicator parameters for THD.
The Unnamed Creek was considered the receptor for Site-related contaminants in the 1989 ROD due to the observed impact to macroinvertebrates in the creek. As discussed above, the ROD includes an RAO to control migration of contaminants into the creek. In order to determine if this RAO has been achieved, analytical data from the Unnamed Creek was compared to the PADEP WQC presented above.
Sampling of the Unnamed Creek was historically conducted on a quarterly basis for the first year following construction of the remedy in 1995, on a semi-annual basis for the second year following construction, and annually during the third year following construction. Historic sampling did not indicate the presence of Site-related contaminants in the Unnamed Creek at that time and sampling of the creek was discontinued in 1998.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy modification selected in the 2009 ESD, two additional sampling events were conducted in the Unnamed Creek in March 2011 and January 2012. During those sampling events, m-BDSA was detected in the Unnamed Creek at a concentration of 97 μg/L in March 2011 and 77 μg/L in January 2012, below the criteria listed above by multiple orders of magnitude. THD was detected at a concentration of 70 μg/L during the January 2012 sampling event and was not detected in March 2011. No other Site COCs were detected in the Unnamed Creek during either of the sampling events conducted since the installation of the Seep A cap.
Additionally, the 1989 ROD indicated that completeness of the remedy will be determined by performing bioassay testing. Bioassay testing has been performed on water collected from Seep A and Seep B, but not on water from the Unnamed Creek. In the 2009 ESD, EPA determined that water collected by Seep B no longer exhibited toxicity based on the bioassay testing data. Current data from the Unnamed Creek indicate that Site COC concentrations are either non-detect or are below the concentrations detected in Seep B. Therefore, the water in the Unnamed Creek also does not exhibit toxicity according to the bioassay criteria. Because the Unnamed Creek is considered the receptor for Site-related contamination, the remedy for OU–3 can be considered complete. Water collected by Seep A continues to exhibit toxicity based on recent bioassay sampling and will continue to be collected as an O&M task until the bioassay criteria are reached in order to prevent contaminated groundwater from discharging to the Unnamed Creek. Based on current contaminant trends in Seep A water, the bioassay criteria are
Based on a comparison to currently proposed PADEP WQC and Site-specific bioassay criteria, the remedy has achieved the RAO of controlling contaminant migration into the Unnamed Creek as specified in the 1989 ROD.
The RAO of controlling the migration of contaminants into groundwater has been achieved via the installation of the seep interceptor system and enhanced by the installation of the Seep A Cap. At the time of the ROD, it was determined that the concentrations of Site COCs in groundwater did not present a current or potential future risk to human health. Additionally, no Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for Site COCs existed at the time of the 1989 ROD and no MCLs currently exist or are proposed. Although not selected as an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) in the 1989 ROD, since the ROD was issued, PADEP promulgated a State-Wide Health Standard (SHS) Medium Specific Concentration (MSC) for resorcinol in groundwater of 73,000 μg/L for residential use and 200,000 μg/L for non-residential use. Groundwater monitoring was historically conducted on a semi-annual basis from 1999 through 2010. The highest detection of resorcinol during the monitoring period was 50,600 μg/L in February of 2000, below the PADEP SHS MSCs and concentrations have continued to decline. Groundwater monitoring has been conducted three times since 2010. In the three most recent sampling events conducted in March 2011, January 2012, and July 2012 the highest detection of resorcinol was 27,100 μg/L, below the PADEP SHS MSCs. The concentrations of all Site COCs in groundwater have significantly decreased, in most cases by an order of magnitude, since the 1989 ROD was issued. Therefore, the current concentrations of Site COCs in groundwater do not present a current or potential future risk to human health. Based on this information, the remedy has achieved the RAO of controlling contaminant migration into groundwater as specified in the 1989 ROD.
The remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment and all RAOs specified in the 1989 ROD have been achieved. Operation and maintenance of the remedy and institutional controls, as described below, will ensure the long-term protection of human health and the environment.
Long-term monitoring and maintenance at the Site is conducted in accordance with the Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) initially dated July 14, 1993 and revised on April 15, 2013 following the completion of the remedy modification and subsequent initial monitoring. The O&M Plan, as revised, consists of the following components:
• Annual site inspection of the following: on-site landfill/cap, former south disposal pit area, Seep A collection piping, above ground storage tank, Seep A cap/bioswale/stormwater swale, and ancillary facilities.
• Groundwater sampling and analysis;
○ Landfill Wells—Hydraulic monitoring and sampling every five years to coincide with Five Year Reviews;
○ Groundwater Monitoring Wells—Annual hydraulic monitoring, sampling every five years to coincide with Five Year Reviews.
• Surface water sampling and analysis;
○ Annual sampling through 2014, after which samples will be collected every five years to coincide with Five-Year Reviews.
• Seep water collection and disposal (seep interceptor system Seep A);
○ Off-site disposal as needed;
○ Periodic sampling to determine if collected water (Seep A) meets bioassay criteria.
• Leachate collection and disposal (on-site landfill);
○ Pumping, collection, and off-site disposal as needed.
• Progress reporting;
○ Reporting every five years to coincide with Five Year Reviews.
The 1989 ROD for the Site required that institutional controls be placed on the Site to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy. The 2004 Second Five Year Review indicated that the institutional controls were not yet in place, and subsequently the institutional controls were implemented on September 23, 2004 in the form of a deed restriction consisting of the following:
• No groundwater beneath the Site may be used and no wells may be installed on the Site for human consumption, irrigation, or other purpose that may bring it into contact with humans, except for testing purposes as required by law, remedial action/design, or the terms of the Consent Decree;
• No structure may be placed on the Site that would disturb the cap or stabilized contents of the landfill or would otherwise disturb any component of the remedial action/design without prior written approval of the Site owner and EPA;
• The Site may not be used for the purposes of living, dwelling, or overnight accommodations of any type;
• No action may be taken that will interfere with, obstruct, or disturb the performance of any remedial response, including O&M;
• Any Site owner must provide any purchaser with notice of the terms of the Consent Decree prior to transferring any interest in the Site.
The 2009 Third Five Year Review indicated that the requirement for institutional controls was in the declaration portion of the 1989 ROD only and not in the remedy selection portion. Therefore, EPA included a clarification of the requirement for institutional controls in the 2009 ESD to ensure that the controls remain in place and effective.
Three Five Year Reviews have been conducted at the Site in 1999, 2004, and 2009. The Protectiveness Statement in the 2009 Third Five Year Review was as follows:
“The remedy at the Craig Farm Drum Site is protective of human health and the environment in the short and long term. Physical construction is complete and institutional controls have been implemented.
Protection of human health and the environment has been achieved by the installation of a RCRA-equivalent landfill to contain waste (OU–1) and a seep interceptor system to collect contaminated groundwater for off-site treatment (OU–3). Additionally, protection of human health is enhanced due to the location of the Site within the Bear Creek Area Chemical Site (BCACS), in which all residents are required to connect to public water. Currently, design is underway for the modification of the seep interceptor system by the addition of an impermeable cap and groundwater infiltration system to reduce overburden groundwater flow through contaminated material, further enhancing the protectiveness of the remedy. Finally, the remedy is protective of both human health and the environment in the long-term due to the implementation of institutional controls alerting current and future Site owners of the contaminants on-site and restricting landfill and groundwater use. The requirements for the institutional controls at the Site will be clarified in an ESD to further ensure long-term protectiveness.”
As previously indicated, the ESD referenced above was issued to clarify the institutional controls in September 2009. The next Five Year Review is scheduled to be completed in June 2014.
The Site is located in an extremely rural area and few residents live in close proximity to the Site. Historically, community involvement activities consisted of a public meeting in 1989 to present the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for the 1989 ROD, availability sessions during construction of the remedy in 1993 and 1994, and public notices prior to conducting Five Year Reviews in 1999, 2004, and 2009.
In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's community involvement activities associated with this deletion will consist of placing the deletion docket in the local site information repository and placing a public notice (of EPA's intent to delete the site from the NPL) in a local newspaper of general circulation.
Construction of the remedy at the Site has been completed in accordance with the 1989 ROD and 2009 ESD, institutional controls are in place, and O&M is being conducted in accordance with the O&M Plan. All RAOs, performance standards, and cleanup goals established in the 1989 ROD have been achieved and the remedy is protective of human health and the environment in both the short and long term. No further Superfund response, other than operation, maintenance, and Five Year Reviews, is necessary to protect human health and the environment.
The Site Deletion procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have been followed for the deletion of the Site.
The EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through PADEP, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and Five Year reviews have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective September 30, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse comments byAugust 29, 2013. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Final rule.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations applicable to air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. The revisions incorporate the provisions of two special permits into the regulations. In addition, PHMSA is amending the current approval and documentation requirements for a material classified as a UN3268 air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner. These revisions are intended to reduce the regulatory burden on the automotive industry and facilitate commerce, while continuing to maintain an equivalent level of safety.
Matthew Nickels, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, telephone (202) 366–8553.
List of Subjects
In this final rule, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) applicable to the transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners in § 173.166. This rulemaking is responsive to one petition for rulemaking submitted by an industry representative: P–1523, asking that PHMSA remove unnecessary burdens on the industry that do not advance safety. Further, this final rule is incorporating into the HMR the provisions of two widely used and longstanding special permits with established safety records (DOT–SP 12332 and DOT–SP 13996). These revisions are intended to reduce the regulatory burden on the automotive industry and facilitate commerce, while continuing to maintain an equivalent level of safety.
This rulemaking specifically finalizes revisions to five regulatory initiatives. The first initiative modifies the approval process and documentation requirements associated with classifying air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. The second initiative incorporates provisions of DOT–SP 12332 into the HMR by excepting Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners assigned to UN3268 from the requirement to provide the EX number on the shipping paper. The third initiative is a simple clarification that a safety restraint device that is installed in a vehicle or vehicle component is not subject to the HMR. The fourth initiative incorporates provisions of DOT–SP 13996 into the HMR by authorizing the use of non-DOT specification, reusable containers manufactured from high-strength plastic, metal, or other suitable material, or other dedicated handling devices, for transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. The fifth initiative permits several additional types of packaging to maintain alignment with the 17th revised edition of the UN Model Regulations.
The costs and benefits of the amended regulations are dependent on the level of preexisting compliance with the two special permits and the overall effectiveness of the amended regulations (e.g., flexibility provided when incorporating portions or whole special permits). Additionally, we believe that this rulemaking will benefit the automobile industry because it will reduce the burden in how air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners are authorized for shipment by eliminating the necessity to submit approval applications to PHMSA, and thus provide a significant cost savings.
The costs associated with the rule are negligible due to minor revisions to the recordkeeping requirements. DOT explosives test labs that test and examine air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners will be required to provide the manufacturer a detailed report on each tested design. The DOT explosives test labs already provide manufacturers with test reports for classification purposes, but the amended reporting requirements will require minimal additions to the report (e.g., unique product identifier, etc.). Outside of this marginal impact, this rulemaking provides numerous benefits. PHMSA is currently spending/expending an estimated $82,800 per year to process and review special permits and approvals associated with Class 9 airbags and seat-belt pretensioners. Further, industry incurs an estimated $165,000 per year to prepare and submit applications for special permits and approvals, and $890,000 per year to provide the EX numbers on shipping papers. Combined, these costs total $1,137,800 per year. Since the objective of the rule is to eliminate these costs, the benefits that can be achieved are estimated to be $1,137,800 per year.
However, notwithstanding the data above, because of the difficulty of and uncertainty associated with forecasting industry effects into the far future, we assumed a 10-year timeframe to outline, quantify, and monetize the costs and benefits of the rulemaking and to demonstrate the net effects of the rulemaking.
The net benefits of the rule are calculated by subtracting the costs from the benefits. Since the costs are assumed to be negligible, the first-year net benefits are estimated to be $1.14 million. Based upon the market analysis presented in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA), it's assumed these benefits will grow at an annual average rate of 5 percent.
With this in mind, PHMSA has concluded that the aggregate benefits justify the final rule. For additional information and review of the analysis underlying these estimates, as well as possible approaches to reduce the costs of this rule while maintaining or increasing the benefits, please review the RIA available at the public docket for this rulemaking.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March 26, 2012 [77 FR 17394] under Docket No. PHMSA–2010–0201 (HM–254) to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171–180) applicable to the transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners in § 173.166. This NPRM was part of an ongoing review by PHMSA to identify widely used and longstanding special permits with established safety records for adoption into HMR. The numbers of the special permits considered for incorporation in the NPRM were DOT–SP: 12332 and 13996. PHMSA identified these special permits as implementing operational techniques that achieve a safety level that corresponds to or exceeds the safety level required under the HMR. In addition, this rulemaking addresses petition for rulemaking P–1523, dated June 24, 2008 (P–1523) and two addendums submitted on February 26, 2009 and June 14, 2011 by the North American Automotive Hazmat Action Committee (NAAHAC). NAAHAC represents numerous automobile manufacturers and component suppliers located in North America as well as in Asia and Europe. NAAHAC's petition requested revisions to requirements in the HMR applicable to safety restraint systems (e.g., air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners). NAAHAC suggested that subjecting Class 9, UN3268 safety restraint systems to the EX approval process in accordance with § 173.56 imposed an unnecessary burden on the industry that does not advance safety. Therefore, NAAHAC requested that PHMSA remove the requirement for manufacturers to apply for and receive an EX approval number for the shipment of Class 9, UN3268 safety restraint systems.
In addition, NAAHAC suggested that PHMSA incorporate the following long-standing special permits into the HMR:
•
a. Non-specification steel drums with a wall and lid thickness not less than 20 gauge. The lid must be securely affixed
b. Outer packagings that are UN Standard 4H2 solid plastic boxes or non-specification rugged reusable plastic containers with either trays or cushioning material in the containers to prevent movement of articles during transportation. Inner packagings are static-resistant plastic bags or trays.
•
As stated above, in addition to NAAHAC's petition suggesting that subjecting Class 9, UN3268 safety restraint systems to the EX approval process in accordance with § 173.56 imposes an unnecessary burden on the industry that does not advance safety, the petition also suggested that PHMSA incorporate these two long-standing special permits into the HMR. PHMSA agrees with the petition and proposed to amend the HMR to incorporate certain requirements based on these two special permits issued under 49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B (§§ 107.101 to 107.127).
PHMSA agrees with the petitioner that requiring documentation for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners to be submitted to PHMSA and assigned an EX Number is unnecessarily burdensome. PHMSA believes that eliminating this requirement will not adversely affect safety since the devices will still continue to be sent to the explosive test labs for classification purposes and assigned a unique product identifier by the lab, but the documentation will no longer be forwarded to PHMSA and issued an EX Number (please see A. Approval Process below for further discussion). Further, PHMSA agrees that incorporating the terms of DOT–SP 12332 and DOT–SP 13996 into the HMR will promote compliance and safety. As a result, PHMSA proposed to revise § 173.166 to address the concerns highlighted in NAAHAC's petition. PHMSA believed that changes proposed by the NPRM promoted the safe transportation of Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners, while significantly reducing the financial burden on the overall automotive industry (and the device manufacturers specifically) for shipping these devices. The amendments adopted by this final rule are summarized below.
In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to allow manufacturers of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners to receive a classification of Class 9 (UN3268) for new designs that pass Test series 6(c) of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, which is currently required by Special Provision 160. As was proposed, an air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner would be classed as Class 9 (UN3268) if the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is examined and successfully tested by a person or agency (authorized testing agency) who is authorized by the Associate Administrator to perform such examination and testing of explosives under 173.56(b)(1).
As was proposed in the NPRM, persons who test and examine air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners would be required to provide a detailed report on each tested design to the manufacturer. Key components of the report include a description of the design; explanation of the tests performed and results; and a recommended classification for tested designs. The manufacturer must retain the report for as long as the design is in production and for 15 years thereafter. Additionally, the manufacturer must make the report available to Department officials upon request. This record retention requirement ensures that a detailed test report of each air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is maintained and available for the useful life of the device. These records may be used to verify the accuracy and validity of the tests and classification recommendation.
In summary, the proposed NPRM amendments provided manufacturers of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners with the option to utilize new designs that are proven to meet the criteria of a Class 9 through established test criteria, without receiving an EX approval from PHMSA. The result would be a significant cost savings and no change in the level of safety. Additionally, we proposed to permit manufacturers to continue to receive EX approval by submitting their designs for examination and testing in accordance with § 173.56(b) if they so choose.
If an air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner fails Test series 6(c) of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, as provided by Special Provision 160, then the device must continue to be approved by PHMSA in accordance with the explosive examination, classification, and approval process in § 173.56(b).
PHMSA proposed in the NPRM to except Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners assigned to UN3268 from the requirement to provide the EX number on the shipping paper. As suggested by NAAHAC, the documentation requirement imposes a cost burden, but does not provide a safety benefit.
In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to clarify that a safety restraint device that is installed in a vehicle or vehicle component is not subject to the HMR. This change made it clear that the exception will continue to apply to Class 9, UN3268 materials that are not approved by the Associate Administrator.
In the NPRM, PHMSA also proposed to authorize the use of non-DOT specification, reusable containers manufactured from high strength plastic, metal, or other suitable material, or other dedicated handling devices, for transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. This change would incorporate the provisions of Special Permit DOT–SP 13996 into the HMR.
Special Permit DOT–SP 13996 allows the specified packaging to be used for transportation from the manufacturing facility to an intermediate handling location; from an intermediate handling location to the assembly facility; from the assembly facility to an intermediate handling location; from the intermediate handling location back to the manufacturing facility; or from the
In the NPRM, PHMSA also proposed to authorize additional packaging alternatives for air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners that have been removed from, or were intended to be used in, a motor vehicle that meets the requirements for use in the United States. The proposed change would incorporate the provisions of Special Permit DOT–SP 12332 into the HMR. In accordance with the special permit, this additional packaging option would be limited to devices that are offered for transportation and transported domestically by highway.
In the NPRM, we did not propose any changes to the requirements for shipping air bag modules or seat-belt pretensioners for recycling. In the current HMR, when offered for domestic transportation by highway, rail freight, cargo vessel or cargo aircraft, a serviceable air bag module or seat-belt pretensioner removed from a motor vehicle that was manufactured as required for use in the U.S. may be offered for transportation and transported without compliance with the shipping paper requirement prescribed in § 173.166(c), but the word “Recycled” must be entered on the shipping paper immediately after the basic description prescribed in § 172.202. However, we believed that the word “Reuse” might be a more appropriate description for the actual action that is taking place. We requested comments regarding a potential change from the word “Recycled” to “Reuse” that would appear on shipping papers in accordance with an altered § 173.166(d)(4).
To maintain alignment of the HMR with international requirements, in the NPRM, we proposed to incorporate changes based on the Seventeenth revised edition of the UN Model Regulations. Specifically, in addition to the packagings authorized currently in § 173.166(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3), we proposed to permit 1N2 and 1D drums, 3B2 jerricans, and 4A, 4B, 4N, and 4H1 boxes.
In response to PHMSA's March 26, 2012 NPRM (77 FR 17394), PHMSA received comments from seven organizations, associations, and individuals. While the majority of commenters supported the proposals in the NPRM, some commenters had suggestions for additional revisions to the regulatory text. The comments, as submitted to this docket, may be accessed via
(1) Hapag-Lloyd America; PHMSA–2010–0201–0002.
(2) United Parcel Service (UPS); PHMSA–2010–0201–0003.
(3) International Vessel Operators Dangerous Goods Association (IVODGA); PHMSA–2010–0201–0004.
(4) North American Automotive Hazardous Materials Action Committee (NAAHAC); PHMSA–2010–0201–0005.
(5) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); PHMSA–2010–0201–0006.
(6) National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA); PHMSA–2010–0201–0007.
(7) Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA); PHMSA–2010–0201–0008.
The two special permits addressed in this final rule that authorize the transportation in commerce of certain air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners under the HMR were initially issued to members of industry associations or similar organizations. They have well established safety records, and therefore PHMSA has determined that they are excellent candidates for incorporation into the HMR. Incorporating these special permits into the HMR will eliminate the need for over 2,100 current grantees to reapply for the renewal of two special permits every four years and for PHMSA to process the renewal applications, thereby eliminating a significant paperwork burden both on industry and the government.
Below is a discussion of comments we received regarding specific provisions proposed in the NPRM, and PHMSA's position regarding those comments. As discussed above, commenters were supportive of this rulemaking, and those comments within the scope of this rulemaking are discussed below.
Paragraph (b) of § 173.166 provides for the classification requirements of an air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to allow manufacturers of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners to receive a classification of Class 9 (UN3268) to new designs that pass Test series 6(c) of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria—currently required by Special Provision 160. We also proposed that, an air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner may be classed as Class 9 (UN3268) if the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is examined and successfully tested by a person or agency (authorized testing agency) who is authorized by the Associate Administrator to perform such examination and testing of explosives under 173.56(b)(1). PHMSA received comments in support of these proposed amendments because these changes would simplify the classification process. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (b).
One commenter suggested:
We would point out that at the present time there are air bag inflator designs which utilize a flammable gas mixture, and while these devices have tested out of Class 1 they have never been included in Class 9/UN3268. They have, instead, been classified as Class/Division 2.1. While we believe it would certainly be appropriate to allow flammable gas mixtures to be classed as 1.4G if the devices did not meet the criteria for exclusion from Class 1, we do not feel that they should be included in Class 9 as they meet the characteristics of a flammable gas.
We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in paragraph (b)(1) to reflect this in this final rule.
Another commenter suggested: “We ask that the reference to `maximum parameters of each design' continue to be included in the regulation, as it is key to understanding that the approvals issued are not specific to individual part numbers but rather to design types.” We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in both paragraph (b)(1) and (b)(2) to reflect this in this final rule.
Regarding § 173.166(b)(2), one commenter suggested:
We would ask the complete reference to 173.56(b)(1) be included rather than just to 173.56. This will match the similar reference contained in paragraph (b)(1) above. We are requesting this so that all parties who read both portions of the regulations are clearly pointed to 173.56(b)(1) which specifies those agencies authorized by the DOT, and particularly that they are US citizens.
We agree with the commenter's point and revised the language in paragraph (b)(2) to reflect this in this final rule.
Paragraph (c) of § 173.166 provides for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners assigned to UN3268 to be excepted from the requirement to provide the EX number on the shipping paper. As suggested by the original NAAHAC petition, the documentation requirement imposes a cost burden, but does not provide a safety benefit. PHMSA received comments in support of these proposed amendments because these changes would simplify the hazard communication process. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (c).
One commenter suggested: “We find the wording of this paragraph extremely confusing, and we would ask that the language be made clearer to ensure compliance.” Another commenter suggested that: “PHMSA may simply be able to eliminate the proposed 173.166(c)(1) and create a new 173.166(c) by adapting the language found in the proposed 173.166(c)(2).” After reviewing the regulatory text from the NPRM, we agree partially with the commenters' issue and revised the language in paragraph (c) to reflect this in this final rule.
Paragraph (d) of § 173.166 provides for certain exceptions for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to clarify that a safety restraint device that is installed in a vehicle or vehicle component is not subject to the HMR. PHMSA determined that this change makes it clear that the exception will continue to apply to Class 9, UN3268 materials that are not approved by the Associate Administrator. PHMSA received comments in support of these proposed amendments because these changes would simplify the exceptions provided. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (d).
Regarding § 173.166(d)(1), one commenter suggested:
We are asking for the inclusion of the term `inflator' in the exceptions so as to harmonize with the 17th Revised Edition of the Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, UN Model Regulations, Special Provision 289. We also feel that it is important to clarify that in order to utilize the exception offered in this paragraph in the U.S., the devices must have been classified as Class 9 per the 49 CFR. This is clear for the 1.4G's but not for the Class 9's. Additionally, we commend the DOT for clarifying that this relief applies to both the Class 9 and 1.4G devices.
We agree with the commenters points and revised the language in paragraph (d)(1) to reflect this in this final rule.
Regarding § 173.166(d)(2), one commenter suggested: “During previous discussions with PHMSA in the summer of 2011, this topic was addressed informally and the industry has been operating within this policy since that time. We strongly feel that placing this into the regulation significantly enhances understanding and compliance.” After reviewing the language provided, we agree with the commenters point and revised the language in paragraph (d)(2) to reflect this in this final rule.
Regarding § 173.166(d)(4), one commenter suggested:
This paragraph is the basis of the special permit DOT–SP 12332, which expanded upon this exception and offered additional packaging options. Both this paragraph and the areas where DOT–SP 12332 were incorporated into the regulation should address both disposal and recycling, not just recycling. This should apply to inflators, modules and pretensioners of either Class 9 or 1.4G.
We agree with the commenter's point and revised the language in paragraph (d)(4) to reflect this in this final rule.
Also, the same commenter suggested: ‘We do not feel that the terms ‘Reuse’ or ‘Reused’ should be substituted for “Recycle” or “Recycled”. The Automotive Safety Council (formerly Automotive Occupant Restraints Council—AORC) has gone on record many times against the reuse of airbags.” We appreciate the feedback since we asked the question in the NPRM regarding using the term “reuse” v. “recycled,” and we agree with the commenter and will not be revising the language in paragraph (d)(4) in this final rule.
A commenter suggested: “While we do feel it is helpful to have the word `Recycled' following the basic description when shipping to a recycling location, we hope that the requirement to have the word `waste' in association with the basic description will only come into play when required by 172.101(c)(9).” We do agree with the commenter's point and note that while it doesn't affect the regulatory text in this final rule, shippers should use the word “waste” when required by § 172.101(c)(9).
Lastly, another commenter countered a previous point with:
In addition to this possible streamlining of the text, PHMSA may also be able to simplify the requirements for the shipment of recycled Air bag inflators, Air bag modules and Seat belt pretensioners that are assigned to Class 9. The current proposal retains the requirement to include the word `Recycled' on the shipping paper immediately after the basic description. However, we submit there is no need for this additional text. The function of the word `Recycled' is presumably to explain the absence of the EX number from a shipping paper. But the very purpose of the simplified procedures for Class 9 Air bag inflators, Air bag modules and Seat belt pretensioners appears to accomplish the same goal. By proposing to eliminate the need for inclusion of the EX number on a shipping paper associated with a Class 9 shipment of these articles, PHMSA eliminates the need to distinguish recycled Air bag inflators, Air bag modules and Seat belt pretensioners from those sent in new condition. We believe that with the changes proposed in Docket HM–254, there is no value in requiring the word `Recycled' to appear on the shipping paper. It appears that PHMSA could simply delete the text of § 173.166(d)(4), and we respectfully requests that PHMSA consider this change.
While we do appreciate the feedback regarding the recycling provisions, we disagree on the statement that they provide no further value to the HMR; and, therefore we will not be further revising the language in paragraph (d)(4) in this final rule.
Paragraph (e) of § 173.166 permits different types of packagings for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to authorize the use of non-DOT specification, reusable containers manufactured from high strength plastic, metal, or other suitable material, or other dedicated handling devices, for transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. PHMSA also proposed to authorize additional packaging alternatives for air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners that have been removed from, or were intended to be used in, a motor vehicle that meets the requirements for use in the United States. PHMSA received comments in support of these proposed amendments because these changes would expand the options for shipping these products. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (e).
Regarding the introductory text of § 173.166(e), one commenter suggested:
During a meeting in 2011 with PHMSA, the Supplier Regulatory Workgroup of NAAHAC
After reviewing the introductory text to paragraph (e), we agree with the commenters point and revised the language to reflect this in this final rule.
Regarding § 173.166(e)(4)(i), one commenter suggested: “The industry feels that the use of returnable packagings has proven quite safe over the many years of shipping Class 9/UN3268 products, and that there should be no limitations to the use of returnables that meet the performance criteria called out in 173.166(e)(4)(A)-(C).” While we understand the commenter's point of view, after reviewing the issue, we have determined to keep the language as is in this final rule.
Regarding § 173.166(e)(4)(ii), one commenter suggested:
DOT–SP 13996 allowed for this type of activity—it was designed to accommodate both returns of production shipments from the OEM's to the supplier and for sequencers (intermediate handlers) to receive/open/store/re-pack and ship parts on to the customer. Without the change suggested here, or something similar, this new regulation is actually more restrictive than DOT–SP 13996.
We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) to reflect this in this final rule.
Regarding § 173.166(e)(5), one commenter suggested:
Since expiration dates for EX approvals are not required, it is unclear why specific approvals are being targeted for what we assume to be re-testing. In order for products to be shipped in packagings previously approved by the Associate Administrator, neither the products nor the packagings may be changed. The testing previously performed and the results would, therefore, not have changed. We strongly disagree with this restriction, and ask for its removal.
While we understand the commenters viewpoint, the intent of paragraph (e)(5) was not to single out specific approvals for re-testing but to continue to permit previously approved air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners to remain in circulation. However, we do recognize the confusion that an end-date may cause industry and we agree with the commenters point and revised the language in paragraph (e)(5) to reflect this in this final rule.
Regarding § 173.166(e)(6), one commenter suggested:
As noted above, DOT–SP 12332 was intended to be an expansion of the packaging methods allowed for disposal or recycling. We would ask that a clear reference to both be included. Additionally, DOT–SP 12332 does not include 1.4G product, so we have excluded the 1.4G/UN0431 product here as well.
We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in paragraph (e)(6) to reflect this in this final rule.
Regarding § 173.166(e)(6)(i), one commenter suggested:
When DOT–12332 was originally issued, the inclusion of the steel drum packaging option was based on testing performed in steel drums with a void in the top of the drum—no inner packagings, no cushioning. The void area, in combination with the lid ventilation, is intended to provide space for the appropriate venting of gases in the case of a fire without rupture of the drum. Obviously this would allow for movement of the devices inside the drum if there were rough handling, but the safety benefit of the void far outweighs concerns about movement of devices. Movement of devices inside a steel drum would not constitute a safety hazard—not regarding spillage or inadvertent operation.
We agree with the commenters point and revised the language in paragraph (e)(6)(i) to reflect this in this final rule.
Paragraph (g) of § 173.166 provides the recordkeeping requirements for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to require record retention requirement to ensure that a detailed test report of each air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is maintained and available for the useful life of the device. As such, these records would be used to verify the accuracy and validity of the tests and classification recommendation. PHMSA received comments in support of these proposed amendments because these changes would allow for better accountability of tracking test records. However, commenters did provide PHMSA with some modifications to the proposed language in paragraph (g).
Regarding § 173.166(g), one commenter suggested: “While we see the need for the authorized testing agency to maintain test reports for a considerable period of time after testing, we feel it should be the manufacturer's responsibility to keep track of the duration of manufacture of a design type and maintain the test report for 15 years beyond manufacture.” We agree with the commenters point in that a revision is needed to more clearly articulate a timeline for each stakeholder's recordkeeping requirements, and revised the language in paragraph (g) to reflect this in this final rule.
PHMSA also received some comments that did not directly pertain to the proposed regulatory text from the NPRM; however, is relevant to the discussion of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners. While the majority of commenters supported the proposals in the NPRM, some commenters had suggestions for new regulatory text not proposed in the NPRM.
One commenter suggested:
To ensure that the exception from including the EX number on the shipping paper for Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seatbelt pretensioners is crystal clear for international shipments, we recommend revising § 171.23(b)(2) to add the following statement at the end of the paragraph: This requirement does not apply to Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seatbelt pretensioners.
While we do understand the commenters point of view and also strive to be as clear as possible, we believe the current text in § 171.23(b)(2) is sufficient. We believe that the current language directing shippers to § 173.166(c) is still appropriate since § 173.166(c)(1) discusses the requirements for 1.4G air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners, while § 173.166(c)(2) excepts Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners from the EX number requirements. Therefore, the text in § 171.23(b)(2) will remain as currently written.
Upon further PHMSA review, we noticed that there was no direct connection to the exception provided in § 173.166(d)(1) for air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners that have been classed as a Division 1.4G and approved by the Associate Administrator and are installed in a motor vehicle, aircraft, boat or other transport conveyance or its completed components, such as steering columns or door panels. To rectify this, we are revising Special Provision 161 in § 172.102(c)(1) to direct stakeholders to § 173.166(d)(1) so that they are aware that these installed or completed components are not subject to the requirements of this subchapter
Another commenter suggested:
We believe revisions in Part 175 are needed to eliminate misunderstanding related to information required on the NOTOC. We are aware that PHMSA already believes that for an air carrier, the EX number for UN3268 need not be shown on the NOTOC. However, the regulations governing the NOTOC are, by PHMSA's own admission, ambiguous enough that UPS urges the agency to include a clarification in any Final Rule for Docket HM–254. Such a revision is discussed in a March 28, 2011 letter of interpretation (10–0194), in which PHMSA explains that it did not intend the EX number to be required in the NOTOC for shipments of UN3268 and mentions a future rulemaking in which a clarification will be proposed. Because there are numerous Class 9 Air bag inflators, Air bag modules and Seat belt pretensioners for which EX numbers have been issued, the HMR needs to be clear as to whether the EX number is a required part of the NOTOC. We believe that Docket HM–254 presents the needed opportunity for making this clarification to the requirements for the NOTOC. Prompt action is required, because FAA inspectors, perhaps unaware of PHMSA's view on the matter, have assessed civil penalties for missing EX numbers on the NOTOC. A simple adjustment to 49 CFR 175.33 would establish that the EX number for UN3268 is not required to be displayed on the NOTOC. In order to avoid any additional misunderstandings, a similar statement should be included explaining that the word `Recycled' also is not required on the NOTOC. For example, a new subsection 175.33(a)(12) could be added, such as the following: (12) For articles classed as UN3268, notwithstanding the previous assignment of an EX number to any Air bag inflator, Air bag module or Seat belt pretensioner, the EX number is not required to be displayed on the notification of pilot-in-command. For a recycled Air bag inflator, Air bag module or Seat belt pretensioner assigned to Class 9, the word `Recycled' is not required to be shown on the notification of pilot-in-command.
We appreciate the point that the commenter made, but this final rule specifically provides the exception in § 173.166(c)(2) where Class 9 air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners are excepted from the EX number requirements on shipping papers. This specific revision to the way § 173.166(c) currently reads makes it clear that moving forward there are no EX numbers on Class 9 shipping papers. Therefore, the text in § 175.33(a) will remain as currently written.
This final rule is published under the authority of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law, 49 U.S.C. 5101
This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The final rule is not considered a significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures order issued by the Department of Transportation [44 FR 11034]. However, for those stakeholders who might be interested, a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) was developed for this final rule and is available for review in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review of September 30, 1993. Executive Order 13563, issued January 18, 2011, notes that our nation's current regulatory system must not only protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment but also promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.
Executive Order 13610, issued May 10, 2012, urges agencies to conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to examine whether they remain justified and whether they should be modified or streamlined in light of changed circumstances, including the rise of new technologies.
By building off of each other, these three Executive Orders require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.”
In this final rule, PHMSA is amending the HMR to incorporate alternatives this agency has permitted under widely used and longstanding special permits and competent authority approvals with established safety records that we have determined meet the safety criteria for inclusion in the HMR. Incorporation of these provisions into the regulations of general applicability will provide shippers and carriers with additional flexibility to comply with established safety requirements, thereby reducing transportation costs and increasing productivity. In addition, the final rule will reduce the paperwork burden on industry and this agency resulting from putting an end to the need for renewal applications for special permits. Taken together, the provisions of this final rule will promote the continued safe transportation of hazardous materials while reducing transportation costs for the industry and administrative costs for the agency.
PHMSA considered five potential regulatory alternatives.
•
•
•
•
•
The final rule adopts Alternative 5, “Incorporate Two Special Permits and Reduce Burdensome/Extraneous Provisions.” By amending the HMR with these requirements, PHMSA will be incorporating the provisions contained in two widely used or longstanding special permits that have established safety records. These revisions are intended to eliminate the need for future renewal requests, thus reducing paperwork burdens and facilitating commerce while maintaining an equivalent level of safety.
As noted previously, current compliance costs consist primarily of paperwork requirements for both industry and the Government. Paperwork burden is encountered in three different areas: in the class approval process, in the granting of special permits, and in providing the required information on shipping papers.
Based upon a review of our special permits and general approvals databases, it is estimated that PHMSA reviews approximately 200 applications per year for classification approvals, other general approvals, and special permits associated with Class 9 air bags inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. Assuming that PHSMA spends $414 per application,
Industry also incurs a cost for preparing and submitting these applications, as well as retaining records. According to the Institute for the Makers of Explosives, industry spends approximately $825 to apply for each renewal, party status, or modification of a special permit that deals with the transportation of bulk explosives using multipurpose bulk trucks. Using this figure as a proxy for the cost to industry for preparing and submitting applications regarding air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners, it's estimated the annual cost to the automobile industry to be $165,000. Grantees are currently required to retain a copy of their application and all supporting documentation, but these recordkeeping costs are assumed to be negligible; even at 1 cent per page per year and 100 pages of documentation, such costs would only amount to $200 per year.
The biggest cost to industry is assumed to be the cost of verifying and then transcribing the EX number on shipping papers. In its petition, NAAHAC estimated this cost to be approximately $890K per year.
PHMSA estimates that the economic effects of this rulemaking, once finalized and adopted, will be sustained for many years into the future. Notwithstanding this, because of the difficulty of and uncertainty associated with forecasting industry effects into the far future, PHMSA assumes a 10-year time period to quantify and monetize the costs and benefits and demonstrate the net effects of the proposal.
Costs to the public and PHMSA accrue from the factors associated with the requirements set forth in the regulations and the enforcement methods and procedures adopted by the Federal Government for carrying out the objectives of the rules and regulations. Examples of costs include (but are not limited to): Goods and services required to comply with the regulation; measures of productivity, such as losses related to work time; increases in incident-related death, illness, or disability that can be attributed to the rule; and payments to standard-setting organizations for the standards.
In this analysis, we consider two different costs of the rule. The primary cost is likely to be the increased risk associated with streamlining the class approval process for air bags and seat-belt pretensioners. Removing DOT's review of the explosives lab test results increases the chance that a product that should be designated as Class 1.4 is designated as Class 9. It is difficult to quantify this cost, but we do not believe it to be significant for two reasons. A review of PHMSA's approvals database finds that PHMSA has denied or rejected only 1.7 percent of UN3268 approval applications it has received. These denials include requests for consideration that fall outside the scope of the test result and only 0.5 percent was denied for technical reasons. Therefore, the chance of an incorrect class assignment is likely to be less than 0.5 percent. Second, a review of PHMSA's incident database shows that there have only been four incidents involving properly packaged and declared UN3268 air bags or seat-belt pretensioners since 1996. Minimal damages were reported for all four incidents. Therefore, even if a product
The other costs associated with the rule are negligible due to minor revisions to the recordkeeping requirements. People who test and examine air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners will be required to provide the manufacturer a detailed report on each tested design. Key components of the report include a description of the design, an explanation of the tests performed and results, and a recommended classification for tested designs. The manufacturer must retain the report for as long as the design is in production and for 15 years thereafter. Additionally, the manufacturer must make the report available to DOT officials upon request. This record retention requirement ensures that a detailed test report of each air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is maintained and available for the useful life of the device. These records may be used to verify the accuracy and validity of the tests and classification recommendation.
It should be noted that PHMSA currently requires industry to retain a copy of the classification application, all supporting documentation, and a copy of the approval, as well to make such materials available to DOT upon request. So while there may be a marginal increase in the amount of documentation retained, we believe the cost will be negligible.
Typically the benefits of rules are derived from their health and safety factors. Since the Federal Regulatory Agencies often design regulation to reduce risks to life, evaluation of the benefits of reducing fatality risks can be the key part of the analysis. Examples of benefits in the form of reduced expenditures include (but are not limited to): Private-sector savings, Government administrative savings, gains in work time, and reduced costs of compliance. In this case, most of the benefits from the rule will be derived from reduced compliance costs and Government workload.
As discussed previously, PHMSA is currently incurring an estimated $82,800 per year to process and review special permits and approvals associated with Class 9 air bags inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners. As shown above, industry incurs an estimated $165,000 per year to prepare and submit applications for special permits and approvals, and $890,000 per year to provide the EX number on shipping papers. Combined, these costs total $1,137,800 per year. Since the objective of the final rule is to eliminate these costs, the benefits that can be achieved are estimated to be $1,137,800 per year.
It should be noted that reductions in the costs of transporting air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners could be passed on to automobile manufacturers, which would give rise to additional demand and lead to further implementation of the technology within the motor vehicle fleet. Such a possibility would presumably contribute to a reduction in injuries and fatalities, a benefit we are not able to quantify but believe to be small, given the small savings being realized.
The net benefits of the final rule are calculated by subtracting the costs from the benefits. Since the costs are assumed to be negligible, the first-year net benefits are estimated to be $1.14 million. Based upon the market analysis presented in Section 2.2 of the RIA, we assume these benefits will grow at an annual average rate of 5 percent.
Overall, in this rulemaking effort we evaluated alternative proposals and ultimately chose to finalize the amendments presented in the NPRM. The amendments from this final rule promote retrospective analysis to modify and streamline existing requirements that are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”), and the President's memorandum on “Preemption” published in the
The Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125 (b)) that preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements on the following subjects:
(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous materials;
(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous materials;
(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;
(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; and
(5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material.
This final rule addresses subject areas (1), (3), and (5), above. With the adoption of this final rule, this rulemaking would preempt any State, local, or Indian tribe requirements concerning these subjects unless the non-Federal requirements are “substantively the same” as the Federal requirements. Furthermore, this final rule is necessary to update, clarify, and provide relief from regulatory requirements.
Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at § 5125 (b)(2) that, if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, DOT must determine and publish in the
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines the rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule will not impose increased compliance costs on the regulated industry. Rather, the final rule incorporates current approval procedures for the transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners into the HMR and provides additional flexibility for persons seeking to obtain such approval. In addition, the rulemaking excepts certain shipments from the specific documentation requirements of the HMR; these exception provisions will increase shipping options and reduce shipment costs. Overall, this final rule should reduce the compliance burden on the regulated industry without compromising transportation safety. Therefore, we certify that this final rulemaking will not have a significant or negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and in reality should provide positive economic benefits (i.e., reduced compliance burden) for those small entities.
The impact of this final rule is not expected to be significant. The amendments are generally intended to provide relief to shippers, carriers, and packaging manufactures and testers, including small entities. This relief will provide positive economic benefits to shippers, carriers, and packaging manufactures and testers, including small entities however; these benefits are not at a level that can be considered economically significant.
Therefore, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking has been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts of draft rules on small entities are properly considered.
PHMSA currently has an approved information collection under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 2137–0051, entitled “Rulemaking, Special Permits, and Preemption Requirements,” with an expiration date of April 30, 2014. This final rule will result in a decrease in the annual burden and costs under OMB Control Number 2137–0051 due to amendments to incorporate provisions contained in certain widely-used or longstanding special permits that have an established safety record.
PHMSA also has an approved information collection under OMB Control Number 2137–0557, entitled “Approvals for Hazardous Materials,” with an expiration date of May 31, 2014. While this final rule will result in a slight increase in the annual burden and cost to OMB Control Number 2137–0557 for the minor recordkeeping requirements under § 173.166, this final rule will result in an overall decrease in the annual burden and cost to OMB Control Number 2137–0557 due to the larger cost savings of reducing the number of approvals required by testers of air bags inflators and air bag modules.
PHMSA has an approved information collection under OMB Control Number 2137–0034, entitled “Hazardous Materials Shipping Papers and Emergency Response.” This final rule will result in a decrease in the annual burden and cost due to shippers no longer being required to put the EX numbers on shipping papers for air bag modules.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to an information collection unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a valid OMB control number. Section 1320.8(d), title 5, Code of Federal Regulations requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information and recordkeeping requests.
This final rule identifies revised information collection requests that PHMSA will submit to OMB for approval based on the requirements in this final rule. PHMSA has developed burden estimates to reflect changes in this rule and estimates that the information collection and recordkeeping burdens would be revised as follows:
OMB Control No. 2137–0051:
OMB Control No. 2137–0557:
OMB Control No. 2137–0034:
PHMSA specifically requested comments on the information collection and recordkeeping burdens associated with developing, implementing, and maintaining these requirements for approval under the proposed rule; and we did not receive any comments disputing these numbers. Therefore, we are proceeding as is with these numbers.
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $141.3 million or more to either state, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4375, requires that
Transportation of hazardous materials in commerce is subject to requirements in the HMR, issued under authority of Federal hazardous materials transportation law, codified at 49 U.S.C. 5001
Promote regulatory relief for the classification and shipment of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners while maintaining safety. Respond to rulemaking petitions and provide efficiencies available to special permit holders to the air bag inflator, air bag module, and seat-belt pretensioner industry.
Our goal is to update, clarify and provide relief from certain existing regulatory requirements to promote safer transportation practices, eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements, finalize outstanding petitions for rulemaking, and facilitate international commerce. Therefore, we rejected the no-action alternative and selected alternative 2.
Hazardous materials are substances that may pose a threat to public safety or the environment during transportation because of their physical, chemical, or nuclear properties. The hazardous materials regulatory system is a risk management system that is prevention oriented and focused on identifying a hazard and reducing the probability and quantity of a hazardous materials release. Hazardous materials are categorized by hazard analysis and experience into hazard classes and packing groups. The regulations require each shipper to classify a material in accordance with these hazard classes and packing groups; the process of classifying a hazardous material is itself a form of hazard analysis. Further, the regulations require the shipper to communicate the material's hazards by identifying the hazard class, packing group, and proper shipping name on shipping papers and with labels on packages and placards on transport vehicles. Thus, the shipping paper, labels, and placards communicate the most significant findings of the shipper's hazard analysis. Most hazardous materials are assigned to one of three packing groups based upon its degree of hazard, from a high hazard Packing Group I material to a low hazard Packing Group III material. The quality, damage resistance, and performance standards for the packagings authorized for the hazardous materials in each packing group are appropriate for the hazards of the material transported.
Under the HMR, hazardous materials are transported by aircraft, vessel, rail, and highway. The potential for environmental damage or contamination exists when packages of hazardous materials are involved in transportation incidents. The need for hazardous materials to support essential services means transportation of highly hazardous materials is unavoidable. However, these shipments frequently move through densely populated or environmentally sensitive areas where the consequences of an incident could be loss of life, serious injury, or significant environmental damage. The ecosystems that could be affected by a hazardous materials release during transportation include atmospheric, aquatic, terrestrial, and vegetal resources (for example, wildlife habitats). For the most part, the adverse environmental impacts associated with releases of most hazardous materials are short term impacts that can be reduced or eliminated through prompt clean up and decontamination of the accident scene.
When developing potential regulatory requirements, PHMSA evaluates those requirements to consider the environmental impact of each amendment. Specifically, PHMSA evaluates the: (1) Risk of release and resulting environmental impact; (2) risk to human safety, including any risk to first responders; (3) longevity of the packaging; and (4) if the proposed regulation would be carried out in a defined geographic area, the resources, especially any sensitive areas, and how they could be impacted by any proposed regulations.
In this final rule, PHMSA revised the regulations to incorporate the terms of two special permits into the HMR. The revisions in this final rule involve the transportation of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners that have been classed as UN3268, miscellaneous hazardous materials (Class 9) and UN0431, Articles, pyrotechnic
The Class 9 classification indicates that the material presents a hazard during transportation (but which does not meet the definition of any other hazard class in the HMR), a Class 9 material ranks last in all items regulated by the U.S. DOT in terms of hazard precedence and risk. The revisions in this final rule reflect that fact and will reduce the unnecessary burdens on not just the offerors of these UN3268 materials, but reduce PHMSA's own administrative costs from reviewing unnecessary approvals and special permits.
A Class 1 classification indicates that the material is any substance or article, including a device, which is designed to function by explosion (i.e., an extremely rapid release of gas and heat) or which, by chemical reaction within itself, is able to function in a similar manner even if not designed to function by explosion. The term explosive may also include a pyrotechnic substance or article, depending on its characteristics. The unique properties of Class 1 materials require them to be classed and approved in accordance with § 173.56 of the HMR. The revisions in this final rule reflect that fact and will still require Division 1.4G's to be classified by explosive test labs and submitted to PHMSA for review and issuance of EX number approvals.
The primary environmental risk associated with streamlining the class approval process for air bags and seat-belt pretensioners is misclassification of devices that should be designated as Class 1.4G could be designated as Class 9. Removing DOT's review of the explosives lab test results increases this risk. It is difficult to quantify this risk, but we do not believe it to be significant for two reasons. A review of PHMSA's approvals database finds that PHMSA has denied or rejected only 1.7 percent of UN3268 approval applications it has
In considering the potential environmental impacts of the final action, PHMSA does not anticipate that the incorporation of the listed special permits will result in any significant impact on the human environment because the process through which special permits are issued requires the applicant to demonstrate that the alternative transportation method or packaging proposed provides an equivalent level of safety as that provided in the HMR. PHMSA requested that commenters comment on foreseeable environmental impacts or risk associated with the incorporation of the proposed special permits, and we received no comments suggesting PHMSA overlooked any.
This final rule would affect some PHMSA stakeholders, including hazardous materials shippers and carriers by highway, rail, and vessel, as well as manufacturers and test labs. PHMSA sought comment on the environmental assessment contained in the March 26, 2012, NPRM published under Docket PHMSA–2010–0201 [77 FR 17394] (HM–254) however, PHMSA did not receive any comments on the environmental assessment contained in that rulemaking. In addition, PHMSA sought comment from the following modal partners:
• Federal Aviation Administration
• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
• Federal Railroad Administration
• United States Coast Guard
PHMSA did not receive any adverse comments on the amendments adopted in this final rule from these Federal Agencies.
PHMSA is making numerous amendments to the HMR in response to a petition for rulemaking and incorporation of two special permits. The amendments adopted in this final rule are intended to update, clarify, or provide relief from certain existing regulatory requirements to promote safer transportation practices; eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements; finalize outstanding petitions for rulemaking; facilitate international commerce; and, in general, make the requirements easier to understand and follow.
Given that this rulemaking amends the HMR to incorporate provisions contained in certain widely-used or longstanding special permits that have an established safety record, these changes in regulation should in fact increase safety and environmental protections. Furthermore, while the net environmental impact of this rule will be positive, we believe there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with this final rule.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Under E.O. 13609, agencies must consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards in order to protect the safety of the American public, and we have assessed the effects of the final rule to ensure that it does not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. In this final rule, PHMSA is revising the HMR to align with international standards by: permitting several additional types of packaging to maintain alignment with the 17th revised edition of the UN Model Regulations. This amendment is intended to enhance the safety of international hazardous materials transportation through an increased level of industry compliance, ensure the smooth flow of hazardous materials from their points of origin to their points of destination, and facilitate effective emergency response in the event of a hazardous materials incident. Accordingly, this rulemaking is consistent with E.O. 13609 and PHMSA's obligations under the Trade Agreement Act, as amended.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g. specification of materials, test methods, or performance requirements) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. This final rule does not involve a technical standard; therefore, there are no issues in this rulemaking that comprise the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.
Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Labeling, Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uranium.
In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA is amending 49 CFR Chapter I as follows:
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81, 1.96 and 1.97.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
161 For domestic transport, air bag inflators, air bag modules or seat-belt pretensioners that meet the criteria for a Division 1.4G explosive must be transported using the description, “Articles, pyrotechnic
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81, 1.96 and 1.97.
(a)
(b)
(i) Does not manufacture or market explosives, air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners, is not owned in whole or in part, or is not financially dependent upon any entity that manufactures or markets explosives, air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioners;
(ii) Performs all examination and testing in accordance with the applicable requirements as specified in Special Provision 160 (see § 172.102 of this subchapter); and
(iii) Maintains records in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
(iv) By adhering to all the provisions specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Class 9 (UN3268) air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is not required to be submitted to the Associate Administrator for approval or assigned an EX number;
(2) An air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner may be classed as Division 1.4G if the maximum parameters of each design type has been examined and successfully tested by a person or agency who is authorized by the Associate Administrator to perform such examination and testing of explosives under § 173.56(b)(1). For domestic transport, air bag inflators, air bag modules or seat-belt pretensioners that meet the criteria for a Division 1.4G explosive must be transported using the description, “UN0431, Articles, pyrotechnic
(3) The manufacturer has submitted an application, including a classification issued by the competent authority of a foreign government to the Associate Administrator, and received written notification from the Associate Administrator that the device has been approved for transportation and assigned an EX number.
(c)
(2) An air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner when classed as a Class 9 (UN3268) under the terms of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, is excepted from the EX number requirements of this paragraph (c).
(d)
(2) An air bag module containing an inflator that has been previously approved by the Associate Administrator for transportation is not required to be submitted for further examination or approval. For classifications granted after July 30, 2013, if the Class 9 designation for the inflator is contingent upon packaging or other special means specified by the authorized testing agency, the modules must be tested and certified separately to determine if they can be shipped as “UN3268, Air bag modules, 9, PG III”.
(3) An air bag module containing an inflator that has previously been approved by the Associate Administrator as a Division 2.2 material is not required to be submitted for
(4)
(e)
(1) 1A2, 1B2, 1N2, 1D, 1G, or 1H2 drums.
(2) 3A2, 3B2, or 3H2 jerricans.
(3) 4A, 4B, 4N, 4C1, 4C2, 4D, 4F, 4G, 4H1, or 4H2 boxes.
(4)
(A) The gross weight of the containers or handling devices may not exceed 1000 kg (2205 pounds). Containers or handling devices must provide adequate support to allow stacking at least three units high with no resultant damage;
(B) If not completely enclosed by design, the container or handling device must be covered with plastic, fiberboard, metal, or other suitable material. The covering must be secured to the container by banding or other comparable methods; and
(C) Internal dunnage must be sufficient to prevent movement of the devices within the container.
(ii) Reusable containers manufactured from high-strength plastic, metal, or other suitable material, or other dedicated handling devices are authorized for shipment of air bag inflators, air bag modules, and seat-belt pretensioners only to, between, and from, intermediate handling locations, provided they meet the conditions specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i)(A) through (C) of this section and:
(A) The packages may be opened and re-packed by an intermediate handler as long as no modifications or changes are made to the packagings; and
(B) Transportation must be made by private or contract carrier.
(5) Packagings which were previously authorized in an approval issued by the Associate Administrator may continue to be used, provided a copy of the approval is maintained while such packaging is being used.
(6)
(i) Specification and non-specification steel drums with a wall and lid thickness not less than 20 gauge. The lid must be securely affixed with a lever-locking or bolted-ring assembly. The lid of the drum must provide ventilation of the drum contents in a fire. The drum may be filled with any combination of air bag inflators, air bag modules, or seat-belt pretensioner devices to a capacity not greater than fifty (50) percent of the drum's total volume. In addition, inner packagings or cushioning may not be used to fill the void space; or
(ii) Outer packaging consisting of 4H2 solid plastic boxes or non-specification rugged reusable plastic outer packaging and inner static-resistant plastic bags or trays. If not completely enclosed by design, the container or handling device must be covered with plastic, fiberboard, metal or other suitable material. The covering must be secured to the container by banding or other comparable methods. The articles must be packed to prevent movement within the container during transportation.
(f)
(g)
(i) Name and address of the test facility;
(ii) Name and address of the applicant;
(iii) Manufacturer of the device. For a foreign manufacturer, the U.S. agent or importer must be identified;
(iv) A test report number, drawing of the device, and description of the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner in sufficient detail to ensure that the test report is traceable (e.g. a unique product identifier) to a specific inflator design;
(v) The tests conducted and the results; and
(vi) A certification that the air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner is classed as a Class 9 (UN3268).
(2) For at least fifteen (15) years after testing, a copy of each test report must be maintained by the authorizing testing agency. For as long as any air bag inflator, air bag module, or seat-belt pretensioner design is being manufactured, and for at least fifteen (15) years thereafter, a copy of each test report must be maintained by the manufacturer of the product.
(3) Test reports must be made available to a representative of the Department upon request.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to implement management measures described in Regulatory Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (FMP), as prepared by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council). This rule establishes minimum size limits for parrotfish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). The purpose of this final rule is to provide protection from harvest to parrotfish and to assist the stock in achieving optimum yield (OY).
This rule is effective August 29, 2013.
Electronic copies of the regulatory amendment, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Britni Tokotch, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone 727–824–5305; email:
The reef fish fishery of Puerto Rico and the USVI is managed under the FMP, which was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR Part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
On March 11, 2013, NMFS published a proposed rule for Regulatory Amendment 4 and requested public comment (78 FR 15338). The proposed rule and Regulatory Amendment 4 outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by this final rule is provided below.
This final rule establishes minimum size limits for parrotfish species in the EEZ off St. Croix. These limits apply to both the commercial and recreational sectors. This rule establishes a minimum size limit of 8 inches (20.3 cm), fork length, for redband parrotfish (
This rule implements a minimum size limit of 9 inches (22.9 cm) for all but one of the parrotfish species for which harvest is allowed, because this size limit best captures the range of sizes at maturity for these species. This rule sets a minimum size limit of 8 inches (20.3 cm), fork length, for redband parrotfish because they are relatively smaller fish and they reach maturity at a smaller size than the other managed parrotfish species. A minimum size limit reduces mortality of smaller (generally female) parrotfish, thereby enhancing spawning biomass and the supply of gametes (especially eggs), and ultimately increasing yield-per-recruit from the stock (assuming discard mortality is low). Parrotfish discard mortality is assumed to be low because spears are the predominant gear used to harvest parrotfish and therefore the fish are individually targeted. In addition, discard mortality of parrotfish harvested by trap is expected to be low because parrotfish are harvested in relatively shallow waters, thus reducing the threat of barotrauma related mortality. A minimum size limit also reduces the likelihood of recruitment overfishing that might otherwise lead to a stock biomass level below maximum sustainable yield. Therefore, this final rule sets a minimum size limit to increase the number of juvenile parrotfish that can reach sexual maturity and assist the stock in achieving OY.
NMFS received two comment submissions on Regulatory Amendment 4 and the proposed rule. NMFS received one submission that expressed general support for the actions contained in the proposed rule. We acknowledge this comment, but do not respond in detail. NMFS also received one submission from a Federal agency that included several specific comments. The comments from the Federal agency are summarized and responded to below.
With respect to ensuring that the minimum size limits do not result in recruitment overfishing, the Council acknowledged that there is some uncertainty regarding the consequences of establishing minimum size limits for parrotfish. However, the Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that if new information indicates that the minimum size limits are resulting in unintended consequences, the Council can reevaluate the size limits and take appropriate action.
On April 17, 2013, NMFS published in the
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the species within Regulatory Amendment 4 and is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis prepared for the proposed rule. A description of the action, why it is being considered and the legal basis for the rule are contained in the preamble of the proposed rule and in the preamble of this final rule. A summary of the FRFA follows. None of the public comments concerned the IRFA, and there are no changes in this final rule as a result of public comment. Therefore, there are no changes in the estimates of either the number of small businesses affected or the potential adverse economic impacts.
This final rule will affect up to 80 percent (142) of St. Croix, USVI, licensed commercial fishermen, and every licensed fisherman is assumed to represent a small business in the Finfish Fishing Industry (NAICS 114111). The 142 small businesses are largely minority owned and managed businesses and are divided by full-time versus part-time enterprises and by gear used to catch fish.
Each of the small businesses will have to obtain a measuring tool and use it to ensure that the parrotfish species they keep and land are equal to or greater in size than the minimum size limit. Any individual fish less than the minimum size limit will have to be discarded. Thus, the adverse impacts of this rule are divided into four parts: (1) Cost of obtaining the measuring tool; (2) additional time-related trip costs to use the tool; (3) loss of revenue from fish that now have to be discarded because they are undersized; and (4) additional fuel, bait and gear costs if fishermen act to mitigate for above losses of revenue.
A measuring tool is estimated to cost from $5 to $10, and the total cost to 142 businesses to acquire the tool would be from $710 to $1,420. The use of the measuring tool will impose to the fishers an additional 4 to 5 seconds per parrotfish caught; however, the frequency of its use will be dependent on both the current sizes of parrotfish that are landed and the gear used to harvest parrotfish. Three different scenarios are presented to represent the range of the potential adverse economic impacts beyond the $5 to $10 cost of acquiring the tool.
In the first scenario, it is theorized that, as a result of the recently imposed St. Croix parrotfish ACL of 240,000 lb (108,863 kg), round weight, all commercial fishermen have foregone catching and landing smaller parrotfish so as to minimize the cost of producing
In the second scenario, it is assumed that commercial fishermen are not catching and landing larger parrotfish, and they cannot mitigate for losses of landings due to discarded undersized fish. If true, this final rule will result in an estimated total annual loss of parrotfish landings between 960 lb (435 kg) and 13,920 lb (6,314 kg). If the average ex-vessel price were $5 per pound, the total annual revenue loss would be between $4,800 and $69,600, and the average revenue loss per small business would be from approximately $34 to $490 per year. Added to the loss of annual revenue will be higher time-related trip costs, especially fuel costs, because it takes 4 to 5 seconds to measure each of the parrotfish that are caught. The magnitudes of the revenue loss and additional trip costs will not be distributed equally among parrotfish harvest methods. Because pot-and-trap fishermen have landed the greatest percentage of smaller parrotfish compared to other methods of harvest, they will experience the greatest percent losses of annual revenues and greatest increase in time-related trip costs.
In the third scenario, fishermen are presumed to act to mitigate for potential losses of parrotfish landings by increasing fishing time and any bait and/or gear costs so that they catch enough legally sized parrotfish or other species to offset the pounds discarded in undersized parrotfish. In this third scenario, annual landings and revenues from those landings will be the same as baseline landings and revenues, but the costs of producing the landings increase. It is expected that small businesses that use pots and traps will incur the greatest increases in fuel, bait, and gear costs to mitigate for potential losses of parrotfish landings and revenues.
The second and third scenarios show disproportionate adverse economic impacts on fishermen who use pots and traps to catch parrotfish. It is unknown if the disproportionate adverse impacts also represent disproportionate adverse impacts on small businesses that are either owned and/or managed by individuals of a specific race, ethnicity, or age, located within a small geographic area of St. Croix, or differentiated by business size.
Considered, but rejected, alternatives would have established larger minimum size limits for parrotfish in the St. Croix EEZ and caused larger adverse economic impacts. Also among the considered, but rejected, alternatives were establishing minimum size limits for parrotfish in the areas of the EEZ off Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John, USVI, which would have increased the number of small businesses regulated and the magnitude of the adverse economic impacts.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as small entity compliance guides. As part of the rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. The fishery bulletin will be sent to all interested parties.
Fisheries, Fishing, Minimum size limit, Parrotfish, St. Croix, Virgin Islands.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
(b)
(c)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
This action closes the Georges Bank (GB) cod Trimester Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Area for the remainder of Trimester 1, through August 31, 2013. Based on our projection, the common pool fishery has caught 90 percent of its GB cod Trimester 1 TAC triggering the regulatory requirement to close the TAC area for the remainder of the trimester. This action is intended to prevent an overage of the common pool's GB cod quota.
This action is effective July 30, 2013, through August 31, 2013.
Sarah Heil, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978–281–9257.
The regulations at § 648.82(n)(2)(ii) require the Regional Administrator to close the Trimester TAC Area for a stock when 90 percent of the Trimester TAC is projected to be caught. The fishing year (FY) 2013 common pool quota for GB cod is 32 mt (70,547.9 lb), which is divided into Trimester TACs. The Trimester 1 TAC is 8.0 mt (17,600 lb). Based on the most recent data, which include vessel trip reports (VTRs), dealer reported landings, and vessel monitoring system (VMS) information, we projected that 90 percent of the
We are required to deduct any overages of the GB cod Trimester 1 and 2 TACs from the Trimester 3 TAC. If the Trimester 1 or 2 TACs are not fully caught, the remaining portions will be carried over to Trimester 3. At the end of FY 2013, we will evaluate total common pool catch, and if the common pool fishery exceeds its annual quota for any stock, we are required to deduct the overage from the respective common pool quota for FY 2014. Uncaught portions of the common pool's annual quota may not be carried over to the next fishing year. Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery can be found on our Web site at:
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
The regulations require the Regional Administrator to close a trimester TAC area to the common pool fishery when 90 percent of the Trimester TAC for a stock has been caught. Updated catch information only recently became available indicating that the common pool fishery would catch 90 percent of its Trimester 1 TAC for GB cod by July 27, 2013. The time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would prevent the immediate closure of the GB cod Trimester 1 TAC area, and would increase the likelihood that the common pool fishery exceeds its quota of GB cod to the detriment of this stock.
Any overage of the Trimester 1 TAC is required to be deducted from the Trimester 3 TAC, which could cause the premature closure of Trimester 3, and have negative economic impacts on the common pool fishery. Any overage of the Trimester 1 TAC would also increase the likelihood that the common pool fishery exceeds its total annual quota for GB cod, which would trigger accountability measures in the 2014 fishing year. Overages would not only have negative economic impacts on the common pool fishery, but would also undermine the conservation objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. As a result, immediate implementation of this action is necessary to help ensure that the common pool fishery does not exceed its GB cod quota.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Referendum order.
This document directs that a referendum be conducted among eligible producers of Vidalia onions grown in Georgia to determine whether they favor continuance of the marketing order that regulates the handling of Vidalia onions produced in the production area.
The referendum will be conducted from September 9 through September 27, 2013. To vote in this referendum, producers must have produced Vidalia onions within the designated production area in Georgia during the period of January 1 through December 31, 2012.
Copies of the marketing order may be obtained from the referendum agents at 799 Overlook Drive, Winter Haven, FL 33884, or the Office of the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or Internet:
Corey E. Elliott, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 799 Overlook Drive, Winter Haven, FL 33884; Telephone: (863) 324–3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email:
Pursuant to Marketing Agreement and Order No. 955, as amended (7 CFR Part 955), hereinafter referred to as the “order,” and the applicable provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the order is favored by the producers. The referendum shall be conducted from September 9 through September 27, 2013, among Vidalia onion producers in the production area. Only Vidalia onion producers that were engaged in the production of Vidalia onions in Georgia during the period of January 1 through December 31, 2012, may participate in the continuance referendum.
USDA has determined that continuance referenda are an effective means for determining whether producers favor the continuation of marketing order programs. USDA would consider termination of the order if fewer than two-thirds of the producers voting in the referendum and producers of less than two-thirds of the volume of Vidalia onions represented in the referendum favor continuance. In evaluating the merits of continuance versus termination, USDA will not exclusively consider the results of the continuance referendum. USDA will also consider all other relevant information concerning the operation of the order and the relative benefits and disadvantages to producers, handlers, and consumers in determining whether continued operation of the order would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the ballot materials to be used in the referendum have been submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders. It has been estimated that it will take an average of 20 minutes for each of the approximately 80 producers of Vidalia onions in Georgia to cast a ballot. Participation is voluntary. Ballots postmarked after September 27, 2013, will not be included in the vote tabulation.
Corey E. Elliott and Christian D. Nissen of the Southeast Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, are hereby designated as the referendum agents of the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct this referendum. The procedure applicable to the referendum shall be the “Procedure for the Conduct of Referenda in Connection With Marketing Orders for Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as Amended” (7 CFR 900.400–900.407).
Ballots will be mailed to all producers of record and may also be obtained from the referendum agents, or from their appointees.
Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and –300ER series airplanes. That supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) proposed to require revising the maintenance program to incorporate a revision to the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the maintenance planning data (MPD) document. That SNPRM was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on Model 737–
We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by September 13, 2013.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and –300ER series airplanes. The earlier SNPRM published in the
Since we issued the earlier SNPRM (78 FR 14722, March 7, 2013), we have determined that Model 777F series airplanes are also affected by the identified unsafe condition and must be included in the applicablity.
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the earlier SNPRM (78 FR 14722, March 7, 2013). The following presents the comment received on the earlier SNPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.
FedEx asked that Model 777F series airplanes be added to the applicability identified in paragraph (c) of the earlier SNPRM (78 FR 14722, March 7, 2013), if the intent is to include all Model 777 series airplanes.
We agree with the commenter to include all Model 777 series airplanes for the reason provided previously. We have changed paragraph (c) of this second SNPRM to add Model 777F series airplanes.
We are proposing this second SNPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. The change described above expands the scope of the earlier SNPRM (78 FR 14722, March 7, 2013). As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this second SNPRM.
This second SNPRM revises the earlier SNPRM (78 FR 14722, March 7, 2013), by proposing to add airplanes to the applicability.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 676 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions or the optional terminating action specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 13, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, –300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System.
This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on Model 737–400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, which, in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps, could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance program to incorporate the Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) identified in Appendix 1 of this AD. The initial compliance time for accomplishing AWL No. AWL–28–101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, is within 7,500 flight hours or 3 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., tests), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using AWL No. 28–AWL–101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, of Section D.2., AWLS—Fuel Systems, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622W001–9, Revision February 2012, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, provided the revised “interval” specified in Appendix 1 of this AD is incorporated into the existing maintenance program within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6438; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
Federal Trade Commission.
Announcement of public roundtable and request for public comment.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is holding a public roundtable relating to its September 20, 2012 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) announcing proposed changes to the Care Labeling Rule. The roundtable will explore issues relating to professional wetcleaning, care symbols, the Rule's reasonable basis requirements, and other issues raised in comments received in response to the NPRM.
The public roundtable will be held on October 1, 2013, from 9:15 a.m. until 3:45 p.m. at the FTC's Satellite Building Conference Center, located at 601 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Requests to participate as a panelist must be received by September 3, 2013. Any written comments related to the agenda topics, the issues discussed by the panelists at the roundtable, or the issues raised in comments received in response to the NPRM must be received by October 15, 2013.
Interested parties may file a comment or a request to participate as a panelist electronically or on paper by following the instructions in the Filing Comments and Requests to Participate as a Panelist part of the
Robert M. Frisby, Attorney, 202–326–2098, or Amanda B. Kostner, Attorney, 202–326–2880, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The Rule prohibits manufacturers and importers from selling textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods without attaching labels stating the care needed for their ordinary use.
As part of its ongoing regulatory review program, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) in July 2011 seeking comment on: The economic impact of, and the continuing need for, the Rule; the benefits of the Rule to consumers; and the burdens the Rule places on businesses.
After reviewing these comments, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposing four amendments.
The roundtable will focus on the proposed amendment permitting a wetcleaning instruction and comments urging the Commission to require a wetcleaning instruction. The wetcleaning discussion also will address: (1) The cost of substantiating wetcleaning instructions; (2) the availability of wetcleaning services; (3) consumer awareness of wetcleaning; and (4) the content of labels providing a wetcleaning instruction (
The roundtable also will explore issues relating to the use of care symbols and the Commission's proposal to clarify the Rule's reasonable basis requirements. These discussions will address: (1) The differences between ASTM and ISO symbols and between the 2005 and 2012 ISO symbols; (2) whether to require that labels identify ISO symbols if used to comply with the Rule; (3) the change in the meaning of the circle P symbol in the ASTM system; (4) the absence of ASTM and ISO symbols for solvents other than perchloroethylene (“perc”) and petroleum; (5) consumer understanding of symbols; and (6) how to clarify the Rule's reasonable basis requirements.
The roundtable is open to the public, and there is no fee for attendance. For admittance to the Conference Center, all attendees must show valid government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license. Pre-registration is not necessary to attend, but is encouraged so that staff may better plan this event. To pre-register, please email your name and affiliation to
The roundtable will consist of roundtable discussions by panelists selected by the FTC staff. Other attendees will have an opportunity to comment and ask questions. The Commission will place a transcript of the proceeding on the public record. Requests to participate as a panelist must be received on or before September 3, 2013, as explained in Section IV below. Persons selected as panelists will be notified on or before September 17, 2013.
The submission of comments is not required for participation in the roundtable. If a person wishes to submit paper or electronic comments about the topics to be discussed at the roundtable or issues raised in the comments filed in response to the NPRM, such comments should be filed as prescribed in Section IV, and must be received on or before October 15, 2013.
You can file a comment or request to participate in the roundtable as a panelist online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before October 15, 2013. Write “Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR Part 423, Comment, Project No. R511915” on your comment and “Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR Part 423, Request to Participate, Project No. R511915” on your request to participate. Your comment—including your name and your state B will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
Requests to participate as a panelist at the roundtable should be submitted electronically to
If you file your comment or request on paper, write “Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR Part 423, Comment, Project No. R511915” on your comment and on the envelope and “Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR Part 423, Request to Participate, Project No. R511915,” on your request and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex X), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment or request to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.18(c)(1), the Commission has determined that communications with respect to the merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner advisor shall be subject to the following treatment. Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications shall be placed on the rulemaking record if the communication is received before the end of the staff report comment period. They shall be placed on the public record if the communication is received later. Unless the outside party making an oral communication is a member of Congress, such communications are permitted only if advance notice is published in the Weekly Calendar and Notice of “Sunshine” Meetings.
By direction of the Commission.
Office of Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice of membership and meeting of negotiated rulemaking committee.
This notice announces the final list of committee members of the Indian Housing Block Grant Allocation Formula Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. The committee will negotiate a proposed rule to revise the allocation formula used under the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) Program. In addition, this notice announces a two-day first meeting of the negotiated rulemaking committee.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 27, 2013, and Wednesday, August 28, 2013. On each day, the session will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m., and adjourn at approximately 5 p.m.
The meeting will take place at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, 1750 Welton Street, Denver, Colorado 80202.
Rodger J. Boyd, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4126, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202–401–7914 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339.
The Native American Housing and Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4141
Under the IHBG program, HUD makes assistance available to eligible Indian tribes for affordable housing activities. The amount of assistance made available to each Indian tribe is determined using a formula that was developed as part of the NAHASDA negotiated process. Based on the amount of funding appropriated for the IHBG program, HUD calculates the annual grant for each Indian tribe and provides this information to the Indian tribes. An Indian Housing Plan for the Indian tribe is then submitted to HUD. If the Indian Housing Plan is found to be in compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, the grant is made.
Through this notice, HUD announces the establishment of its Indian Housing Block Grant Allocation Formula Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. The committee will negotiate a proposed rule to revise the allocation formula used for the IHBG Program. This notice announces the final list of negotiated rulemaking committee members.
On June12, 2013 at 78 FR 35178, HUD announced in the
The public comment period on the June 12, 2013, notice closed on July 12, 2013. HUD received three (3) public comments on the notice. This section presents a summary of the issues raised by the commenters on the June 12, 2013, notice, and HUD's responses to these issues.
This section announces the final list of negotiated rulemaking committee members. In making the selections for membership on the negotiated rulemaking committee, HUD's goal was to establish a committee whose membership reflects a balanced representation of Indian tribes. In addition to the tribal members on the committee, there will be two HUD representatives on the negotiated rulemaking committee.
The final list of members of the Indian Housing Block Grant Allocation Formula Negotiated Rulemaking Committee is as follows:
Jason Adams, Executive Director, Salish-Kootenai Housing Authority, Pablo, Montana.
Annette Bryan, Executive Director, Puyallup Nation Housing Authority, Tacoma, Washington.
Heather Cloud, Representative, Ho-Chunk Nation, Black River Falls, Wisconsin.
Gary Cooper, Executive Director, Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, Oklahoma.
Pete Delgado, Executive Director, Tohono O'odham Housing Authority, Sells, Arizona.
Sami Jo Difuntorum, Executive Director, Siletz Tribal Housing Department, Siletz, Oklahoma.
Jason Dollarhide, 2nd Chief, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Miami, Oklahoma.
Earl Evans, Tribal Councilor, Haliwa-Saponi Tribe, Hollister, North Carolina.
Deirdre Flood, Chairwoman, Washoe Housing Authority, Gardnerville, Nevada.
Karin Lee Foster, Legal Counsel, Yakama Nation Housing Authority, Toppenish, Washington.
Carol Gore, President/Chief Executive Officer, Cook Inlet Housing Authority, Anchorage, Alaska.
Lafe Allen Haugen, Executive Director, Northern Cheyenne Tribal Housing Authority, Lame Deer, Montana.
Richard Hill, General Manager, Mille Lacs Housing Authority, Onamia, Minnesota.
Leon Jacobs, Representative, Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, Mystic, Connecticut.
Teri Nutter, Executive Director, Cooper River Basin Regional Housing Authority, Glennallen, Alaska.
Sam Okakok, Housing Director, Native Village of Barrow, Barrow, Alaska.
Diana Phair, Executive Director, Lummi Nation, Bellingham, Washington.
Michael Reed, Chief Executive Officer, Cocopah Indian Housing and Development, Somerton, Arizona.
S. Jack Sawyers, Special Projects Coordinator, Paiute Tribe of Utah, Cedar City, Utah.
Marty Shuravloff, Executive Director, Kodiak Island Housing Authority, Kodiak, Alaska.
Russell Sossamon, Executive Director, Choctaw Housing Authority, Hugo, Oklahoma.
Michael Thom, Vice Chairman, Karuk Tribe, Happy Camp, California.
Sharon Vogel, Executive Director, Cheyenne River Housing Authority, Eagle Butte, South Dakota.
Aneva Yazzie, Chief Executive Officer, Navajo Housing Authority, Window Rock, Arizona.
Sandra Henriquez, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Rodger Boyd, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs.
The first meeting of the Indian Housing Block Grant Allocation Formula Negotiated Rulemaking Committee will be held on Tuesday, August 27, 2013, and Wednesday, August 28, 2013. On each day, the session will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m., and adjourn at approximately 5 p.m. The meetings will take place at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, 1750 Welton Street, Denver, Colorado 80202.
The meeting will be open to the public without advance registration. Public attendance may be limited to the space available. Members of the public may make statements during the meeting, to the extent time permits, and file written statements with the committee for its consideration. Written statements should be submitted to the address listed in the
Decisions with respect to future meetings will be made at the first meeting and from time to time thereafter. Notices of all future meetings will be published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; notice of intent.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site (Site) located in Perry Township, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and Five Year Reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
Comments must be received by August 29, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
John Epps, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814–3144, Email:
In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of today's
For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion which is located in the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 29, 2013 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725–17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Without this type of national data, the U.S.'s ability to detect trends in management, production, and health status, either directly or indirectly, would be reduced or nonexistent.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has revised eight United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Vegetables. This revision replaces dual grade nomenclature with single letter grade designations. “U.S. Grade A” (or “U.S. Fancy”), “U.S. Grade B” (or “U.S. Extra Standard”), and “U.S. Grade C” (or “U.S. Standard”) become “U.S. Grade A,” “U.S. Grade B,” and “U.S. Grade C,” respectively. This change conforms to recent changes in other grade standards. AMS has also updated contact information for obtaining copies of the grade standards and color standards. These changes bring these grade standards in line with the present quality levels being marketed today and provide guidance in the effective use of these products. The grade standards covered by these revisions are: frozen asparagus, frozen lima beans, frozen speckled butter beans, frozen cooked squash, frozen summer squash, frozen sweetpotatoes, frozen turnip greens with turnips, and frozen mixed vegetables.
Brian E. Griffin, Standardization Branch, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 0709,
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1622(c)), directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.”
AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. Those United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Program at the following Web site:
AMS published a second Notice with a 60-day comment period in the
This Notice revises eight of the 18 grade standards identified in notices published July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43141) and January 15, 2013 (78 FR 2946). The changes to each of the grade standards are as follows:
Update address for AMS. Change “U.S. Grade A or U.S. Fancy” to “U.S. Grade A.” Change “U.S. Grade B or U.S. Extra Standard” to “U.S. Grade B.”
Update address for AMS. Change “U.S. Grade A or U.S. Fancy” to “U.S. Grade A.” Change “U.S. Grade B or U.S. Extra Standard” to “U.S. Grade B.” Correct a typographical error to read: “U.S. Grade B is the quality of frozen cooked squash that possesses reasonably good flavor and odor.” This would ensure that these requirements are consistent throughout the document.
Update address for AMS. Change “U.S. Grade A or U.S. Fancy” to “U.S. Grade A.” Change “U.S. Grade B or U.S. Extra Standard” to “U.S. Grade B.” Change “U.S. Grade C or U.S. Standard” to “U.S. Grade C.” Update contact information for obtaining color standards for frozen lima beans.
Update address for AMS. Change “U.S. Grade A or U.S. Fancy” to “U.S. Grade A.” Change “U.S. Grade B or U.S. Extra Standard” to “U.S. Grade B.” Change “U.S. Grade C or U.S. Standard” to “U.S. Grade C.” Update references to color standard and definitions to eliminate conflict with current U.S. Standards for Grades of Frozen Lima Beans (remove reference to Maerz and Paul's Dictionary of Color and replace with current USDA Color Standards for Frozen Lima Beans). Update definition for color to “Green means that not less than 50 percent of the surface area of the individual lima bean possesses as much or more green color than U.S.D.A. lima bean green color standard for frozen lima beans.” Update definition to “White means that more than 50 percent of the surface area of the individual lima bean is lighter in color than U.S.D.A. lima bean white color standard for frozen lima beans.” Add “Information regarding these color standards may be obtained by contacting the Specialty Crops Inspection Division.” These changes would eliminate the inconsistency in evaluating the color of frozen lima beans when they are a component in frozen mixed vegetables.
Update address for AMS. Change “U.S. Grade A or U.S. Fancy” to “U.S.
Update address for AMS. Change “U.S. Grade A or U.S. Fancy” to “U.S. Grade A.” Change “U.S. Grade B or U.S. Extra Standard” to “U.S. Grade B.”
Update address for AMS. Change “U.S. Grade A or U.S. Fancy” to “U.S. Grade A.” Change “U.S. Grade B or U.S. Extra Standard” to “U.S. Grade B.”
Update address for AMS. Change “U.S. Grade A or U.S. Fancy” to “U.S. Grade A.” Change “U.S. Grade B or U.S. Extra Standard” to “U.S. Grade B.” Change references for “flavor” to “flavor and odor” to ensure that these requirements are consistent throughout the document.
The other grade standards identified in the original notice (75 FR 43141), namely frozen carrots, frozen whole kernel corn, frozen corn on the cob, frozen breaded onion rings, frozen peas, frozen peas and carrots, frozen French fried potatoes, frozen sweet peppers, frozen succotash, and frozen tomato juice and tomato juice from concentrate will be revised at a later date. AMS determined that these grade standards require additional revisions to take into account U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Standards of Identity, new styles and pack types, and new commercially cultivated varieties (such as supersweet corn) which possess unique characteristics. AMS will seek additional guidance from the industry to update these grade standards so that they reflect current marketing practices and serve the needs of the industry.
The revisions to these frozen vegetable grade standards made in this notice provide a common language for trade and better reflect the current marketing of frozen vegetables. The changes are made effective 30 days after the date of publication in the
7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
GIPSA is announcing the designation of Amarillo Grain Exchange, Inc. (Amarillo), Cairo Grain Inspection Agency, Inc. (Cairo), Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (Louisiana), North Carolina Department of Agriculture (North Carolina), and D.R. Schaal Agency, Inc. (Schaal) to provide official services under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended.
Eric J. Jabs, Chief, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, QADB, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.
Eric J. Jabs, 816–659–8408 or
In the December 28, 2012
GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in section 79(f) of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(f)) and determined that Amarillo, Cairo, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Schaal are qualified to provide official services in the geographic area specified in the
Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting these agencies at the following telephone numbers:
Section 79(f) of the USGSA authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)).
Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than three years unless terminated by the Secretary; however, designations may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.
7 U.S.C. 71–87k.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Colorado Advisory Committee to the
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, September 23, 2013. Comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 999–18th Street, Suite 1380 South, Denver, CO 80202, faxed to 303–866–1050, or emailed to
Persons needing accessibility services should contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at least 10 working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before September 30, 2013.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Kyra Linse, U.S. Census Bureau, DSD/CPS HQ–7H108F, Washington, DC 20233–8400, (301) 763–9280.
The Census Bureau plans to request clearance for the collection of data concerning the November 2013 Email Address Collection Test Supplement. The Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsor the CPS which has been conducted for over 70 years.
The Current Population Survey (CPS) has been collecting data on household employment for decades. Through the years, it has made survey improvements to keep the data quality and survey response rates high. Over the last few years, CPS, like many surveys, has seen response rates declining slowly. A review of paradata has found one of the main reasons for this decline is not just refusals but also respondent avoidance (i.e. the interviewers are unable to make contact with the respondent). This has led to an effort to think of new ways to contact respondents and reduce respondent burden so that they may be more likely to answer CPS over the many months needed.
One of the solutions recommended has been to research the possibility of using the Internet as a data collection mode as well as a tool to help increase response rates. We foresee that in the future, we could collect email addresses from our respondents. For those that are eligible, we could then send an email to the respondent with a secure link in order for that respondent to complete the CPS the next month over the internet and in turn, keep up response rates while lowering costs of interviewing. Internet is not limited to just a survey data collection mode. These emails could be used for other contacts as well. We could allow the respondent to set up a time to meet with the interviewer at their convenience and save on travel costs associated with the multiple personal visits. The email could also be as simple as a “Thank You” with information that lets respondents know their participation is improving the quality of our data.
This supplement is the first step in the review of the feasibility of this plan. It will test the ability of collecting email addresses and collecting interest in being contacted by email or answering the survey through the internet for possible future enhancements to CPS.
The email address collection will be collected by both personal visit and telephone interviews in conjunction with the regular November CPS interviewing. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 247, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Hardinger Transfer Co., dba Team Hardinger Transportation and Warehousing (Team Hardinger), located in Erie and Grove City, Pennsylvania. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on July 24, 2013.
The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 9, 2013. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to September 23, 2013.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. (Black & Decker) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Fort Mill, South Carolina within Subzone 38E. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 19, 2013.
The Black & Decker facility is located within Subzone 38E. The facility is used for the manufacturing of power tool parts and components, the manufacture and assembly of power tools, the packaging and kitting of power tools and the repair and rework of power tools, parts and accessories. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Black & Decker from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Black & Decker would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to miter saws, drills (with a self-contained motor), saws (with a self-contained motor), grinders, polishers, sanders, screwdrivers, nut-runners, impact wrenches, impact drivers, routers, planers, grass and weed trimmers/edgers, electro-pneumatic rotary and percussion hammers, electric scissors, circle cutters, spindles, gears, sleeve bearings, motors (cordless), SA armatures and work lights (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 12.5%) for the foreign status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Resins (colored pigments); paints; inks; grease; adhesives; loctite; polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, ABS, acetyl, epoxy powder, polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, polyester, saturated polyester, glass filled nylon and polyamide resins; nylon tape; plastic hoses; flexible hoses; nameplates; transparent tapes; ID labels; plastic labels; tape; film stretch; plastic cases; poly-bags; battery caps; blister packs; shrink-heat tubing; plastic handles and knobs; O-rings; seals; washers; retaining clips; chuck key holders; cord protectors; nuts; spacers/fasteners; drive belts; Styrofoam; rubber tubing and hoses; backing pads; caps plugs; polisher pads; tool bags; kit boxes; wood pallets; wood biscuits; corrugated sheets; corrugated cartons; non-corrugated cartons; sleeves; hang tags; labels; fillers; gaskets; paper gaskets; seals; corner posts; instruction/owner manuals; heat transfer labels; blister cards; advertising flyers; leaflets; bulletins; warranty cards; survey cards; slot liners; mower, sander and planer filter bags; sander pads; felt washers and seals; grinding wheels; sanding discs; iron/metal powder; non-alloyed steel; steel; chains; bolts; screws; hardware bag assemblies; lock nuts; nuts; rivets; cotters; cotter pins; retaining rings; snap rings; blade locks; fastener pins; leaf, helical/coil and other springs; wire forms; flanges; backing flanges; rip fences; clips; brass strips; articles of aluminum die-casting; magnesium ingots; bandsaw, circular saw, jigsaw, cutsaw and other blades; wrenches; chuck keys; socket wrenches; clamps; punch/punch & die; drill bits; dies; die kits; loose keys; solders; solder wire; prepared solder bars; parts of inflator fans; mobile bases; wheels for lawnmowers; drill chucks; circle cutters; clamps for stationary tools; parts of work holders; tables and wings for saws; base/cutting arms; brackets, handles, knobs and parts of stationary tools; guards; parts of tools; parts for pneumatic nailers; actuators; bearing plates; bearing retainers; bearing supports; blade clamps; button switches; clamps; cord retainers; counterweights; cover plates; end caps; handles/switch covers; housings; field cases; lock buttons; parts of power tools; circular saw quadrants; shields; jigsaw shoe/plates; triggers; cord clamps; gear cases; dust shields; thrust bearings; ball bearings; needle roller bearings;
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 9, 2013.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) has determined that Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co., Ltd.'s (Tainai's) request for a new shipper review (NSR) of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the People's Republic of China (PRC) meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (POR) for this NSR is June 1, 2012, through May 31, 2013.
As of July 30, 2013.
Elizabeth Eastwood or Stephen Banea, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3874 or (202) 482–0656, respectively.
On June 15, 1987, the Department published in the
In its request, Tainai certified that it is both a producer and exporter of TRBs from the PRC. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Tainai certified that it did not export TRBs to the United States during the period of investigation (POI).
In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A), (B) and (C), Tainai submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which Tainai first shipped TRBs for export to the United States and the date on which the TRBs were first entered; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.
The Department conducted U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) database queries in an attempt to confirm that Tainai's shipment of subject merchandise had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation of this entry had been properly suspended for antidumping duties. The Department also examined whether the CBP data confirmed that this entry was made during the POR. The information the Department examined was consistent with that provided by Tainai. After the initiation of the NSR, the Department intends to place additional CBP data on the record and, if necessary, request additional information from Tainai.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), the POR for an NSR initiated in the month immediately following the anniversary month will be the twelve-month period immediately preceding the anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for this NSR is June 1, 2012, through May 31, 2013. Based on the information provided by Tainai, the sale and entry into the United States of subject merchandise produced and exported by Tainai occurred during this twelve-month POR.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214(b), 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and the information on the record, the Department finds that Tainai meets the threshold requirements for initiation of an NSR for shipments of TRBs from the PRC produced and exported by Tainai.
The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of this NSR no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and the final results no later than 270 days from the date of initiation, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economy countries, to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of
We will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from Tainai in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). The bonding privilege will only apply to entries of subject merchandise both produced and exported by Tainai.
To assist in its analysis of the
Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
National Security Agency/Central Security Service, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The National Security Agency/Central Security Service proposes to alter a system of records in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974(5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective on August 30, 2013 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before August 29, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Kris Grein, National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248,Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6248 or by phone at (301) 688–6527.
The National Security Agency/Central Security Service systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974(5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
NSA/CSS Library Patron File Control System (August 19, 2009, 74 FR 41869)
Delete entry and replace with “National Security Agency/Central Security Service, 9800 Savage Road,Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6000.”
Delete entry and replace with “NSA civilian employees, active duty military assignees to NSA, or contractors assigned to NSA, who have approval of their contracting representative, are given permission to borrow items from the NSA/CSS library.”
Delete entry and replace with “Section 6 of the National Security Agency Act of 1959, Public Law 86–36, (codified at 50 U.S.C. Section 402 note); and Department of Defense Instruction
Delete entry and replace with “Chief, Advanced Intelligence Research Services, National Security Agency/Central Security Service, 9800 Savage Road, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6000.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6248.
Written inquiries should contain the individual's full name, mailing address, and signature.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6248.
Written inquiries should contain the individual's full name, mailing address, and signature.”
Delete entry and replace with “The NSA/CSS rules for contesting contents and appealing initial determinations are published at 32 CFR Part 322 or may be obtained by written request addressed to the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6248, Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755–6248.”
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Department of the Army proposes to alter a system of records notice, A0600–8–104 AHRC, “Army Personnel System (APS)” in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a (r)), as amended. This system will manage the member's Army Service effectively, document historically the member's military service, and safeguard the rights of the member and the Army.
This proposed action will be effective on August 30, 2013 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before August 29, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Mr. Leroy Jones, Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325–3905 or by calling (703) 428–6185.
The Department of the Army's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended were submitted on July 2, 2013, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A–130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Military Personnel Records Jacket Files (MPRJ) (January 6, 2004, 69 FR 790).
Delete entry and replace with “Army Personnel System (APS).”
Delete entry and replace with “U.S. Army Human Resources Command, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122–5500.”
Delete entry and replace with “Current and former members of the U.S. Army (including Active and Reserve Components), DoD civilians, military dependents, and members of the general public.”
Delete entry and replace with “IDENTIFICATION DATA: Name, other names used, name change, Social Security Number (SSN), DoD ID Number, driver's license number, other ID number, citizenship, legal status, gender/sex, race/ethnicity, ethnic group code, birth date, place of birth, state of birth, country of birth, religious preference, birth certificate, citizenship statement and status, demographics, U.S. field medical card.
CONTACT INFORMATION: Personal cell telephone number, home telephone number, personal email address, mailing/home address, emergency contact, emergency data, Army Knowledge Online (AKO) email address, network login, personal network ID, daytime telephone number, home of record address, geographic location abbreviation, work fax number, work telephone number.
MILITARY PERSONNEL INFORMATION: Military records, acknowledgements of service requirements, active duty report, appellate actions for 10 U.S.C. 815,
DEPENDENT/FAMILY DATA: Mother's maiden name, mother's middle name, marital status, date of marriage, spouse information (citizenship, country of birth, date of birth, date of death, SSN, state of birth), child information, child SSN, family members' names, family members' dates of birth, miscellaneous correspondence pertaining to dependents.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: Bank account number, financial institution.
MEDICAL INFORMATION: Medical records, applications for review by physical evaluation and disability boards, date of last physical examination, disability information, HIV test date, medical examination, and temporary disability record.
LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION: Consent for police record checks, FBI reports.
EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION: Application for employment, civilian employer (company, job title, position, start date, supervisor information, work address, work telephone).
EDUCATION INFORMATION: Civilian education (certifications, degree code, education code, degree, major, transcripts, university, military education (records, code, courses).”
Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations, 10 U.S.C. Sections 12731, Age and Service Requirements; 1413a, Combat-related special compensation, 1477, Death gratuity: Eligible survivors; 3013, Secretary of the Army; 612–646, Promotion, Separation, and Involuntary Retirement of Officers on the Active Duty List, Chapter 55, Medical and Dental Care, Chapter 61, Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability, and Subtitle E, Parts I–IV, Reserve Components; 37 U.S.C. 1006, Pay and Allowances; 42 U.S.C. 10606, The Public Health and Welfare; 44 U.S.C. Chapters 29, Records Management by the Archivist of the United States and by the Administrator of General Services, chapter 31, Records Management by Federal Agencies and chapter 33, Disposal of Records, 44 U.S.C. 3101–3102 and 3501, Public Printing and Documents; Public Law 93–3097; Section 636, National Defense Authorization Act; DODD 1030.1, Victim and Witness Assistance; DODD 1200.7, Screening the Ready Reserve; DODD 1235.10, Activation, Mobilization, and Demobilization of the Ready Reserve; DODD 1310.1, Rank and Seniority of Commissioned Officers; DODD 1332.18, Separation or Retirement for Physical Disability; DODI 1300.19, Joint Officer Management Program; DODI 1300.20, DOD Joint Officer Management Program Procedures; DODI 1320.4, Military Officer Actions Requiring Approval of the Secretary of Defense or the President, or Confirmation by the Senate; DODI 1320.12, Commissioned Officer Promotion Program; DODI 1320.14, Commissioned Officer Promotion Program Procedures; Under Secretary of Defense Memo, General and Flag Officer Boards—Adverse Information of a Credible Nature; DODI 1336.08, DODI 1336.08, Military Human Resource Records Life Cycle Management, AR 25–1, Army Knowledge Management and Information Technology; AR 25–400–2, ARIMS; AR 40–3, Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Care; AR 40–407, Nursing Records and Reports; AR 135–133, Ready Reserve Screening, Qualification Records System and Change of Address Reports; AR 135–155, Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers Other Than General Officers; AR 140–1, Army Reserve Mission, Organization, and Training; AR–140–9, Entry On Active Duty or Active Duty for Training (ROTC Officers); AR 140–10, Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers; AR 140–30, Active Duty in Support of the USAR and AGR Management Program; AR 149–50, Officer Candidate School, Army Reserve; AR 140–111, U.S. Army Reserve Reenlistment Program; AR 140–145, IMA Program; AR 140–185, Training and Retirement Point Credits and Unit Level Strength; AR 140–315, Employment and Utilization of U.S. Army Reserve Military Technicians; AR 380–381, Special Access Programs; AR 600–8–6, Personnel Accounting and Strength Reporting; AR 600–8–19, Enlisted Promotions and Reductions; AR 600–8–29, Officer Promotions; AR 600–8–104, Army Military Human Resource Records Management; AR 600–8–111, Wartime Replacement Operations; AR 600–18, The Family Advocacy Program; AR 623–3, Evaluation Reporting System; AR 635–40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement or Separation; AR 640–30, Photographs for Military Personnel Files; AR 690–200, General Personnel
Delete entry and replace with “Personnel records are created and maintained to manage the member's Army Service effectively, document historically the member's military service, and safeguard the rights of the member and the Army.
The APS will transfer Soldiers' names, ranks, SSNs, and assignment data (both historic and pending) electronically from the Integrated Total Army Personnel Data Base (ITAPDB) to the Centralized Operations Police Suite (COPS) system of the Office of the Provost Marshal General (OPMG) monthly for the purpose of assisting OPMG in providing commanders criminal history of Soldiers incoming to their commands.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system.
This system of records contains individually indentifiable health informaton. The DoD Health Information Privacy Regulation (DoD 6025.18–R) issued pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, applies to most such health information. DoD 6025.18–R may place additional procedural requirements on the uses and disclosures of such information beyond those found in the Privacy Act of 1974 or mentioned in this system of records notice.
Delete entry and replace with “Paper records and electronic storage media.”
Delete entry and replace with “Buildings and/or rooms employ alarms, security guards, and are security-controlled areas accessible only to authorized persons. Hard copy records are maintained in General Service Administration approved security containers, and records in the U.S. Army Investigative Records Repository are stored in security-controlled areas accessible only to authorized persons. Electronically and optically stored records are maintained in “fail-safe” system software with password-protected access. Records are accessible only to authorized persons with a need-to-know who are properly screened, cleared, and trained.”
Delete entry and replace with “Soldiers records are offered to the National Archives 75 years after individual's final separation. The National Archives, after consultation with the Department of the Army, genealogists, historians, social scientists, and other interested parties, will then determine the disposition of the records based on any continuing administrative needs and their archival value. Records, if any, not selected for permanent retention by the Archives will be disposed of.”
Delete entry and replace with “Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122–5500.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the commander of the organization to which the service member is assigned. For retired and non-unit reserve personnel, information may be obtained from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122–5500; for discharged and deceased personnel information contact the National Personnel Records Center, 1 Archives Drive, St. Louis, MO 63138–1002.
Individual should provide the full name, SSN, current address and telephone number, and signature.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
`I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United State of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)' ”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the commander of the organization to which the service member is assigned. For retired and non-unit reserve personnel, information may be obtained from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122–5500; for discharged and deceased personnel information contact the National Personnel Records Center, 1 Archives Drive, St. Louis, MO 63138–1002.
Individual should provide the full name, SSN, current address and telephone number, and signature.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
`I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.
`I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)' ”
Department of Education (ED), Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE)
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 29, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Postsecondary Education, National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation, U.S. Department of Education.
The purpose of this notice is to announce the upcoming meeting of the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation (NCFMEA). Parts of this meeting will be open to the public, and the public is invited to attend those portions.
• Upon request of a foreign country, evaluate the standards of accreditation applied to medical schools in that country; and,
• Determine the comparability of those standards to standards for accreditation applied to United States medical schools.
Comparability of the applicable accreditation standards is an eligibility requirement for foreign medical schools to participate in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Student Loan Program, 20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.
The countries which are scheduled to be discussed are Antigua and Barbuda, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Granada, Hungary, Philippines, and Sint Maarten. The meeting agenda, as well as the staff analyses pertaining to the meeting will be posted on the Department of Education's Web site prior to the meeting at
Carol Griffiths, Executive Director for the NCFMEA, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8073, Washington, DC 20006–8129, telephone: 202 219–7035; fax: 202 502–7874, or email:
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
Soule Hydro, LLC (Soule Hydro) has applied for a Presidential permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect an electric transmission line across the United States border with Canada.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before August 29, 2013.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be addressed as follows: Brian Mills, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE–20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Brian Mills (Program Office) at 202–586–8267 or via electronic mail at
The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038.
On March 18, 2013, Soule Hydro filed an application with the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential Permit. Soule Hydro is a limited liability corporation, organized and existing in the State of Delaware. Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) is the parent company and sole shareholder for Soule Hydro.
Soule Hydro proposes to construct and operate a high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) hydroelectric transmission line that is to originate on the Soule River, on Portland Canal in Southeast Alaska, and continue to the BC Hydro Stewart Substation on the north side of Stewart, British Columbia. It would occupy federal land administered by the Ketchikan-Misty Fjords Ranger District of the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service). The proposed Soule River Hydroelectric Project (the “Project”) would be capable of transmitting up to 77.4 megawatts (MW) of power.
The Alaska portion of the Project would be an 8-mile long, 138 kilovolt (kV) HVAC 3-phase submarine cable that would be laid on the floor of Portland Canal off the community of Hyder, Alaska, waterfront before it would cross the international boundary and extend approximately 2 miles to land at Stewart, B.C. Arrow Dock.
The transmission line would eventually transition to overhead and terminate at the BC Hydro Stewart Substation approximately 2.5 miles from the cable landing.
Soule Hydro represents that the Project's precise final route would be subject to a number of factors, including resource issues, permitting, land acquisition, and stakeholder agreement. The approximately 8-mile-long portion of the Project located within the United States as well as the approximately 4.5 miles of transmission infrastructure in Canada would be owned and operated by Soule Hydro.
Since the restructuring of the electric industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the Federal Power Act and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order No. 888 (Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶31,036 (1996)), as amended. In furtherance of this policy, DOE invites comments on whether it would be appropriate to condition any Presidential permit issued in this proceeding on compliance with these open access principles.
Additional copies of such comment, protest, or motion to intervene should also be filed directly with: Mr. Robert S. Grimm, CEO/President, Soule Hydro, LLC, c/o Alaska Power & Telephone Company, 193 Otto Street, P.O. Box 3222, Port Townsend, WA 98368.
Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, DOE must determine that the proposed action is in the public interest. In making that determination, DOE considers the environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, determines the project's impact on electric reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions, and considers any other factors that may also be relevant to the public interest. DOE must obtain the concurrences of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information collection, FERC Form 80, Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due August 29, 2013.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902–0106, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC13–14–000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
FERC Form 80 is a report on the use and development of recreational facilities at hydropower projects licensed by the Commission. Applications for licenses, amendments to licenses, and/or changes in land rights frequently involve changes in resources available for recreation. FERC utilizes the FERC Form 80 data when analyzing the adequacy of existing public recreational facilities and when processing and reviewing proposed amendments to help determine the impact of such changes. In addition, the FERC regional office staff uses the FERC Form 80 data when conducting inspections of licensed projects. FERC inspectors use the data in evaluating compliance with various license conditions and in identifying recreational facilities at hydropower projects.
The FERC Form 80 requires data specified by Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under Parts 8.11 and 141.14 (and discussed at
FERC collects the FERC Form 80 once every six years. The last collection was due on April 1, 2009, for data compiled during the 2008 calendar year. The next collection of the FERC Form 80 is due on April 1, 2015, with subsequent collections due every sixth year, for data compiled during the previous calendar year.
The Commission made minor revisions throughout the form. Specifically, FERC clarified and simplified instructions, removed redundancy in certain questions, clarified questions and terms, and generally improved the readability of the form.
FERC has attached the revised form to this notice.
The total
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on July 23, 2013, Owensboro Municipal Utilities (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company (collectively, Respondents), pursuant to sections 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, requesting that the Commission find that the Respondents violated section 22.1 of its open access transmission tariff by imposing additional charges when service under a Firm Point-To-Point reservation was redirected on a non-firm basis.
Owensboro Municipal Utilities certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondents as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
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. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Desert Sunlight 300, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is August 13, 2013.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also 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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “New Marine Compression Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder (Renewal),” EPA ICR Number 2345.03, OMB Number 2060–0641, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 29, 2013.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0246, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Nydia Yanira Reyes-Morales, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 6403J, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202–343–9264; fax number: 202–343–2804; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Under the Production Line Testing (PLT) Program, manufacturers of Category 3 engines are required to test each engine at the sea trial of the vessel in which the engine is installed or within the first 300 hours of operation, whichever comes first. This self-audit program allows manufacturers to monitor compliance and minimize the cost of correcting errors through early detection. In addition, owners and operators of marine vessels with Category 3 engines must record certain information and send minimal annual notifications to EPA to show that engine maintenance and adjustments have not caused engines to be noncompliant. From time to time, EPA may test in-use engines to verify compliance with emission standards throughout the marine engine's useful life and may ask for information about the engine family to be tested. The information requested is collected by the Diesel Engine Compliance Center (DECC), Compliance Division (CD), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA. Besides DECC and CD, this information could be used by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Department of Justice for enforcement purposes.
Proprietary information is kept confidential in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 40 CFR Parts 2 and 1042, and class determinations issued by EPA's Office of General Counsel. Non-confidential business information may be disclosed as requested under FOIA.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Automobile and Light-duty Truck Surface Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart
Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 29, 2013.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0690, to: (1) EPA online, using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Learia Williams, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–4113; fax number: (202) 564–0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS 2) Program (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2333.03, OMB Control No. 2060–0640) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 29, 2013.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161 to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Geanetta Heard, Fuel Compliance Center, 6406J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
The number of respondents or users of the EMTS system has more than doubled due to the additional response burden for mapping foreign and domestic plantation/forest land owners and foreign biofuels feedstock producers, which was not reflected in the previous ICR reporting period. With an increase of respondents, total burden hours have decreased from 1,421,133 to 608,220 hours. The reduction is due to the fact that the EMTS system's automation structure helps users to prepare reports instantly, lessening the amount of time and cost needed to respond, even with more than a million added users.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's Responsiveness Summary Concerning EPA's May 9, 2013 Public Notice of Proposed Decisions To Add Waters and Pollutants to Louisiana's 2012 Section 303(d) List.
On May 9, 2013 EPA published a notice in the
Based on the Responsiveness Summary, EPA finds no new information or persuasive arguments as to why the three waters should not be added to the 2012 Louisiana Section 303(d) List as proposed. Therefore, EPA is taking Final Action on the addition of three waterbody pollutant combinations to the final Louisiana 2012 Section 303(d) List. The basis for these decisions is described in EPA's Record of Decision.
Copies of EPA's Responsiveness Summary Concerning EPA's July 18, 2013 Public Notice of Final Decisions To Add Waters and Pollutants to Louisiana's 2012 Section 303(d) List can be obtained at EPA Region 6's Web site at
Diane Smith at (214) 665–2145.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that each state identify those waters for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain state water quality standards. For those waters, states are required to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) according to a priority ranking.
EPA's Water Quality Planning and Management regulations include requirements related to the implementation of Section 303(d) of the CWA (40 CFR 130.7). The regulations require states to identify water quality limited waters still requiring TMDLs every two years. The list of waters still needing TMDLs must also include priority rankings and must identify the waters targeted for TMDL development during the next two years (40 CFR 130.7).
Consistent with EPA's regulations, Louisiana submitted to EPA its 2012 listing decisions under Section 303(d) on February 14, 2013. On May 1, 2013, EPA approved Louisiana's 2012 listing of 323 water body-pollutant combinations and associated priority rankings, and proposed to disapprove Louisiana's decisions not to list three waterbodies. On July 18, 2013, EPA finalized the action to disapprove Louisiana's 2012 listing decisions not to list three water quality limited segments. EPA identified these additional waters and pollutants along with priority rankings for inclusion on the 2012 Section 303(d) List.
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on August 8, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883–4009, TTY (703) 883–4056.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102–5090.
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available) and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:
*Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before August 29, 2013. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202–395–5167 or via Internet at
Benish Shah, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418–7866.
The Commission established uniform technical standards for various non-licensed equipment operating under the guidelines established in 47 CFR parts 2, 15 and 18 of the FCC rules, which include personal computers, garage door openers, baby monitors, etc. In order to ensure that technical standards are applied uniformly to non-licensed equipment, the Commission requires manufacturers to follow the standardized measurement procedures and practices:
(a) 47 CFR part 2 of the Commission's rules requires each Electro-Magnetic Compatibility (EMC) testing facility that performs equipment testing in support of any request for equipment authorization to file a test site description with the Commission. The Commission also permits a testing facility to be accredited by Commission-approved accrediting bodies. A testing laboratory that is accredited by a Commission-approved accrediting body is not required to file a test site description with the Commission since the accreditation body will review this information as part of the accreditation assessment.
(b) The test site description and the supporting information documents that the EMC testing facility complies with the testing standards used to make the measurements that support any request for equipment authorization.
The Commission or a Telecommunications certification body uses the information from these test sites and the supporting documentation, which accompany all requests for equipment authorization:
(a) To ensure that the data are valid and that proper testing procedures are used;
(b) To ensure that potential interference to radio communications is controlled; and
(c) To investigate complaints of harmful interference or to verify the manufacturer's compliance with Section 47 CFR 2.948 of the Commission's rules.
On September 14, 2009, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) identified and requested comment on certain types of information that an applicant should provide to be considered as an accreditation body of test laboratories under the Commission's rules,
In addition, the referenced 47 CFR part 15 rules (47 CFR 15.117(g)(2)) require that certain equipment manufacturers file information concerning the testing of TV receivers, which tune to UHF channels, to show that the UHF channels provide approximately the same degree of tuning accuracy with approximately the same expenditure of time and effort.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are requested concerning whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before September 30, 2013. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918.
Federal Communications Commission.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Limitations on Pass-Through Charges. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before August 29, 2013.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000–0173, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000–0173, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000–0173, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges” on your attached document.
•
•
Mr. Edward N. Chambers, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, at telephone (202) 501–3221 or via email to
To enable contracting officers to verify that pass-through charges are not excessive, the clause at FAR 52.215–22, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges—Identification of Subcontract Effort, requires offerors submitting a proposal for a contract, task order, or delivery order to provide the following information with its proposal:
(1) The percent of effort the offeror intends to perform and the percent expected to be performed by each subcontractor.
(2) If the offeror intends to subcontract more than 70 percent of the total cost of work to be performed—
(i) The amount of the offeror's indirect costs and profit/fee applicable to the work to be performed by the subcontractor(s); and,
(ii) A description of the value added by the offeror as related to the work to be performed by the subcontractor(s).
(3) If any subcontractor intends to subcontract to a lower-tier subcontractor more than 70 percent of the total cost of work to be performed under its subcontract—
(i) The amount of the subcontractor's indirect costs and profit/fee applicable to the work to be performed by the lower-tier subcontractor(s); and,
(ii) A description of the value added by the subcontractor as related to the work to be performed by the lower-tier subcontractor(s).
In addition, if the amount of the effort to be subcontracted by the contractor or a subcontractor changes from the amount identified in the proposal such that it exceeds 70 percent of the total cost of work to be performed, the clause at FAR 52.215–23, Limitations on Pass-Through Charges, requires contractors to provide a description of the value added by the contractor or subcontractor, as applicable, as related to the subcontract effort.
One respondent submitted public comments on the extension of the previously approved information collection. The analysis of their public comments is summarized as follows:
The burden is prepared taking into consideration the necessary criteria in OMB guidance for estimating the paperwork burden put on the entity submitting the information. For example, consideration is given to an entity reviewing instructions; using technology to collect, process, and disclose information; adjusting existing practices to comply with requirements; searching data sources; completing and reviewing the response; and transmitting or disclosing information. The estimated burden hours for a collection are based on an average between the hours that a simple disclosure by a very small business might require and the much higher numbers that might be required for a very complex disclosure by a major corporation. Also, the estimated burden hours should only include projected hours for those actions which a company would not undertake in the normal course of business. Careful consideration went into assessing the estimated burden hours for this collection, and although, the respondent provided estimates of responses and burden hours, the estimates cannot be confirmed with any degree of certainty to totally rely on the information. However, it is determined that an upward adjustment from the previously approved information collection is warranted at this time based upon consideration of the information provided in the public comment.
There is no centralized database in the Federal Government that maintains information regarding the use of the clauses at FAR 52.215–22 and FAR 52.215–23. Therefore, subject matter experts were consulted to obtain additional information that helped in estimating the revised public burden.
For this information collection requirement data from Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 was retrieved from the Federal Procurement Data System—Next Generation (FPDS–NG). The parameters for this information collection were defined based on the prescription from the applicable clauses. Based on a comprehensive review of the prescriptions for the applicable clauses, it was determined that the types of contracts associated with this information collection are:
(1) For civilian agencies, cost-reimbursement type contracts and the total estimated contract or order value exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT).
(2) For DoD, the total estimated contract or order value exceeds the threshold for obtaining cost or pricing data in 15.403–4 ($700,000); and the contract type is expected to be any contract type except—
(i) A firm-fixed-price contract awarded on the basis of adequate price competition;
(ii) A fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment awarded on the basis of adequate price competition;
(iii) A firm-fixed-price contract for the acquisition of a commercial item;
(iv) A fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment, for the acquisition of a commercial item;
(v) A fixed-price incentive contract awarded on the basis of adequate price competition; or
(vi) A fixed-price incentive contract for the acquisition of a commercial item.
For civilian agencies, FPDS–NG shows 3,017 contracts awarded to 2,258 unique vendors were applicable to the clauses associated with this information collection. For DOD, FPDS–NG shows 1,376 contracts awarded to 1,119 unique vendors were applicable to the clauses associated with this information collection. This equates to a total of 4,393 contracts awarded to 3,377 unique vendors. Based on discussions with subject matter experts, it was determined that 4,393 contract awards was a sufficient baseline for estimating the number of solicitations that would include the applicable clause. It is estimated that 3 responses would be submitted in response to a solicitation that included the applicable clauses, for a total of 13,179 estimated respondents per year. The number of responses per respondent is estimated at one. It is also determined that the estimated time required to read and prepare a response is increased from 60 minutes to 120 minutes. This determination is based on the consideration of public comments.
These revisions represent an increase from the previously approved information collection.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing
Daniel Gittleson, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796–5156,
On March 20, 2013, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Guidance on Reagents for Detection of Specific Novel Influenza A Viruses” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910–0584. The approval expires on April 30, 2016. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Safety Labeling Changes—Implementation of Section 505(o)(4) of the FD&C Act.” The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) added new provisions to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) authorizing FDA to require certain drug and biological product application holders to make safety-related labeling changes based upon new safety information that becomes available after the drug or biological product is approved under the FD&C Act or the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act). This final guidance provides information on the implementation of section 505(o)(4) of the FD&C Act, including a description of the types of safety labeling changes that ordinarily might be required under this section; how FDA plans to determine what constitutes new safety information; the procedures involved in requiring safety labeling changes; and enforcement of the requirements for safety labeling changes.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002; or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM–40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–1448. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1–800–835–4709 or 301–827–1800. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Kristen Everett, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6484, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–0453; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM–17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–6210.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Safety Labeling Changes—Implementation of Section 505(o)(4) of the FD&C Act.” In the past, FDA has requested that holders of applications for approved products make labeling changes related to safety after approval to address serious risks. In most cases, application holders responded to these requests by negotiating appropriate language with FDA staff to address the concerns and then submitting a supplement or amended supplement to obtain approval of the change. However, negotiations were often protracted, and FDA had few tools available at its disposal to end negotiations and require the changes. Congress recognized the limitations of FDA's authority in this area and, in FDAAA, gave FDA new authorities to require safety labeling changes in certain circumstances.
Title IX, section 901 of FDAAA (Pub. L. 110–85) amended the FD&C Act by adding new section 505(o)(4) (21 U.S.C. 355(o)(4)). Section 505(o)(4) authorizes FDA to require, and if necessary, order labeling changes if FDA becomes aware of new safety information that FDA believes should be included in the labeling of certain prescription drug and biological products approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act or section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262). Specifically, section 505(o)(4) of the FD&C Act applies to prescription drug products with an approved new drug application (NDA) under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act, biological products with an approved biologics license application (BLA) under section 351 of the PHS Act, or prescription drug products with an approved abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act if the NDA reference listed drug is not currently marketed. The safety labeling changes provisions in section 505(o)(4) apply to the previously listed products, including products that are not marketed, unless approval of the NDA, BLA, or ANDA has been withdrawn in the
In the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on implementation of section 505(o)(4) of the FD&C Act. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
This guidance contains collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0734. This guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information. Specifically, the guidance describes: Labeling supplements for NDAs, ANDAs, and BLAs submitted under 21 CFR 314.70, 314.71, 314.97, and 601.12; and the content and format of prescription drug labeling submitted under 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57. These collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA and are approved under OMB control numbers 0910–0001, 0910–0338, and 0910–0572. Section V of the guidance refers to the guidance entitled “Formal Dispute Resolution: Appeals Above the Division Level,” which describes collections of information approved under OMB control number 0910–0430.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received within 60 days of this notice.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
OMB No. 0915–XXXX—New.
Total Estimated Annualized burden hours:
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), announcement is made of the following National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of September 2013.
The National Advisory Committee on Rural Health will convene its seventy-fourth meeting in the time and place specified below:
Thursday morning, September 5, at approximately 9:00 a.m., the Committee will break into Subcommittees and depart for site visits to health care and human services providers in Montana. One panel from the Health Subcommittee will visit Community Health Partners in Livingston, Montana. Another panel from the Health Subcommittee will visit Wheatland Memorial Healthcare in Harlowton, Montana. The Human Services Subcommittee will visit the Human Resource Development Council, in Bozeman, Montana. The day will conclude at the Holiday Inn Bozeman with a period of public comment at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Friday morning, September 6, at 8:45 a.m., the Committee will summarize key findings from the meeting and develop a work plan for the next quarter and the following meeting.
Steve Hirsch, MSLS, Executive Secretary, National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Parklawn Building, Room 5A–05, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, telephone (301) 443–0835, or fax (301) 443–2803.
Persons interested in attending any portion of the meeting should contact Kristen Lee at the Office of Rural Health Policy (ORHP) via telephone at (301) 443–0835 or by email at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
NIDCR is developing a new strategic plan to guide the Institute's research efforts and priorities over the next six years (2014–2019). The purpose of this time-sensitive Request for Information (RFI) is to seek input from a broad range of stakeholders about prospective activities, areas of research emphasis, future research approaches, needs, and opportunities.
To ensure consideration, your responses must be received by Friday, September 6, 2013.
Responses to this Notice must be submitted electronically using either the web-based format at
Dr. Margo Adesanya, Acting Director, Office of Science Policy and Analysis, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bldg. 31, Rm. 5B/55, MSC 2190, Bethesda, MD 20892, Telephone: 301–594–8774, Fax: 301–496–9988, Email:
NIDCR, the lead Federal agency for research and research training on oral, dental and craniofacial diseases and disorders, has a distinguished record of supporting research to advance the oral health of the nation for 65 years. The mission of the NIDCR is to improve oral, dental and craniofacial health through research, research training, and the dissemination of health information. We accomplish our mission by performing and supporting basic and clinical research; conducting and funding research training and career development programs to ensure an adequate number of talented, well-prepared and diverse investigators; coordinating and assisting relevant research and research-related activities among all sectors of the research community; and promoting the timely transfer of knowledge gained from research and its implications for health to the public, health professionals, researchers, and policy-makers.
This notice invites public comment and input on the development of the next strategic plan. We ask that you consider cross-cutting research opportunities, and/or needs that could have the greatest benefit for advancing oral health.
To inform development of the strategic plan, input is being sought on each of the areas identified below.
(1) “Transformative” areas of research where new discoveries could have the greatest benefit for advancing dental, oral, and craniofacial research.
(2) New technical capabilities or tools that can have a significant impact on dental, oral, and craniofacial research and clinical practice in the next fifteen years.
(3) Scientific advances that could result in a quantum leap in the care of dental, oral, and craniofacial disorders.
(4) Major challenges and opportunities for revolutionizing how we understand, prevent, diagnose and manage dental, oral, and craniofacial diseases and disorders.
(5) NIDCR's role and potential for expanding and enhancing the pipeline for new dental, oral, and craniofacial researchers.
(6) Potential areas for Public-Private Partnerships—partnerships that will allow NIDCR to work collaboratively with both public and private entities to advance research and improve the public health.
(7) Any additional comments or information you think would be useful to NIDCR in developing its 2014–2019 Strategic Plan.
All of the following fields in the response are optional and voluntary. Any personal identifiers will be removed when responses are compiled. Proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should not be included in your response. This notice is for planning purposes only and is not a solicitation for applications or an obligation on the part of the United States (U.S.) government to provide support for any ideas identified in response to it. Please note that the U.S. government will not pay for the preparation of any comment submitted or for its use of that comment.
Please indicate if you are one of the following: grantee, administrator, student, patient advocate, Dean/or Institutional administrator, NIH employee, or other. If you are an investigator, please indicate your career level and main area of research interest, including whether the focus is clinical or basic. If you are a member of a particular advocacy or professional organization, please indicate the name and primary focus of the organization (i.e., research support, patient care, etc.) and whether you are responding on behalf of your organization (if not, please indicate your position within the organization).
Please provide your name and email address.
Collection of this information is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 203, 24 1, 2891–1 and 44 U.S.C. 310 I and Section 301 and 493 of the Public Health Service Act regarding the establishment of the National Institutes of Health, its general authority to conduct and fund research and to provide training assistance, and its general authority to maintain records in connection with these and its other functions.
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, DHS.
Notice; correction.
DNDO published a notice in the
Timothy Smith, (202) 254–7297,
Correct FR Doc. 2013–10928 as follows:
1. In the
The Rad/Nuc Challenge will be held late in Fiscal Year 2014.
2. On page 26795, in the second column, correct the
The location of the Rad/Nuc Challenge is to be announced.
3. On page 26795, in the third column, correct the first sentence of the second full paragraph to read:
The event will be hosted at a location to be announced.
15 U.S.C. 3719.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning enrollment for students and score assessments for FEMA's Independent Study Program.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 30, 2013.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Dana Moat, Training Specialist, Emergency Management Institute, 301–447–1922. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 646–3347 or email address:
FEMA's Emergency Management Institute (EMI) provides a wide variety of training to emergency management personnel throughout the country. The EMI Independent Study (IS) Program is part of the FEMA training program authorized under section 611(f) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, Public Law 93–288 as amended. These courses are offered online by the Emergency Management Institute (EMI). The IS Program provides valuable training to Federal, State, local and Tribal emergency management personnel and the general citizenry of the United States without having to attend a resident course at EMI, or at a State-sponsored course. The IS program also includes a course on the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The National Incident Management System is our nation's incident management system. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5, “Management of Domestic Incidents” requires the adoption of NIMS by all Federal departments and agencies. This directive also requires that Federal preparedness assistance funding for States, Territories, local jurisdictions and Tribal entities be dependent on being NIMS compliance.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of information related to the flood insurance claims process.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 30, 2013.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments.
(1)
(2)
(3)
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Donald Waters, Insurance Examiner, FEMA at (202) 212–4725 for additional information. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 646–3347 or email address:
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is codified as 42 U.S.C. 4001,
Section 205 of The Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act (FIRA) of 2004, Public Law 108–264, requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish by regulation an additional process for the appeal of decisions of flood insurance claims issued through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Consequently, FEMA published an interim final rule in May 2006 and a final rule in October 2006 codifying into regulation what was previously an existing informal process to handle appeals regarding decisions related to coverage, or claims under the NFIP.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of December 3, 2013 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Adminstrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
I. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of December 17, 2013 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Adminstrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
I. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM
The effective date of December 3, 2013 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Adminstrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR Part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard determinations are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These new or modified flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
These new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.
Notice; correction.
On April 30, 2012, FEMA published in the
Comments are to be submitted on or before October 28, 2013.
The Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where applicable, the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1250, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064 or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed in the table below, in accordance
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report are made final.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 77 FR 25498 in the April 30, 2012, issue of the
In Proposed rule FR Doc. 2012–10280, beginning on page 25495 in the issue of April 30, 2012, make the following correction. On page 25498, correct the Harrison County, Texas table as follows:
Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.
Notice; correction.
On April 11, 2012, FEMA published in the
Comments are to be submitted on or before October 28, 2013.
The Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where applicable, the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1247, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064 or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed in the table below, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report are made final.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 77 FR 21792 in the April 11, 2012, issue of the
In Proposed rule FR Doc. 2012–8600, beginning on page 21791 in the issue of April 11, 2012, make the following correction. On page 21792, correct the Gregg County, Texas table as follows:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC
Thomas L. Goade, Director of Technical Support, Office of Multifamily Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Thomas L. Goade at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. Goade.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410–5000; telephone 202–402–3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Lanier M. Hylton, Housing Program Manager, Office of Program Systems Management, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Lanier Hylton at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410–5000; telephone 202–402–5564 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Catherine Brennan, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Catherine Brennan at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The Multifamily Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA) for fiscal year 1998 (public law 105–65, enacted on October 27, 1997), required that expiring Section 8 project-based assistance contracts be renewed under MAHRA. Established in the MAHRA policies renewal of Section 8 project-based contracts rent are based on market rents instead of the Fair Market Rent (FMR) standard.
MAHRA renewals submission should include a Rent Comparability Study (RCS). If the RCS indicated rents were at or below comparable market rents, the contract was renewed at current rents adjusted by Operating Cost Adjustment Factor (OCAF), unless the Owner submitted documentation justifying a budget-based rent increase or participation in Mark-Up-To-Market. The case is that no renewal rents could exceed comparable market rents. If the RCS indicated rents were above comparable market rents, the contract was referred to the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation (OAHP) for debt restructuring and/or rent reduction.
The Preserving Affordable Housing for Senior Citizens and Families Into the 21st Century Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106–74, enacted on October 20, 1999), modified MAHRA.
The Section 8 Renewal Policy Guide sets forth six renewal options from which a project owner may choose when renewing their expiring Section 8 contract: Option One—Mark-Up-To-Market, Option Two—Other Contract Renewal with Current Rents at or Below Comparable Market Rents, Option Three—Referral to the Office of Affordable Preservation (OAHP), Option Four- Renewal of Projects Exempted From OMHAR, Option Five—Renewal of Portfolio Reengineering Demonstration or Preservation Projects, and Option Six—Opt Outs.
Owners should select one of six options which are applicable to their project and should submit contract renewal on an annual basis to renew contract.
The Section 8 Renewal Guide sets forth six renewal options from which a project owner may choose when renewing their expiring Section 8 contracts.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., 2, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Wildland Fire Executive Council (WFEC) will meet as indicated below.
The next meeting will be held September 10, 2013.
The meetings will be held from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on September 10, 2013 at the Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, Room 2654 NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Shari Eckhoff, Designated Federal Officer, 300 E Mallard Drive, Suite 170, Boise, Idaho 83706; telephone (208) 334–1552; fax (208) 334–1549; or email
The WFEC is established as a discretionary advisory committee under the authorities of the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture, in furtherance of 43 U.S.C. 1457 and provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a–742j), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701
The purpose of the WFEC is to provide advice on coordinated national-level wildland fire policy and to provide leadership, direction, and program oversight in support of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council. Questions related to the WFEC should be directed to Shari Eckhoff (Designated Federal Officer) at
Questions about the agenda or written comments may be emailed or submitted by U.S. Mail to: Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Office of Wildland Fire, Attention: Shari Eckhoff, 300 E. Mallard Drive, Suite 170, Boise, Idaho 83706–6648. WFEC requests that written comments be received by the Friday preceding the scheduled meeting. Attendance is open to the public, but limited space is available. Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Ms. Eckhoff at (202) 527–0133 at least seven calendar days prior to the meeting.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Wildland Fire Executive Council (WFEC) will meet as indicated below.
The next meeting will be held August 19, 2013.
The meetings will be held from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 19, 2013 at the Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, Room 2654, NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Shari Eckhoff, Designated Federal Officer, 300 E Mallard Drive, Suite 170, Boise, Idaho 83706; telephone (208) 334–1552; fax (208) 334–1549; or email
The WFEC is established as a discretionary advisory committee under the authorities of the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture, in furtherance of 43 U.S.C. 1457 and provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701
The purpose of the WFEC is to provide advice on coordinated national-level wildland fire policy and to provide leadership, direction, and program oversight in support of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council. Questions related to the WFEC should be directed to Shari Eckhoff (Designated Federal Officer) at
Questions about the agenda or written comments may be emailed or submitted by U.S. Mail to: Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Office of Wildland Fire, Attention: Shari Eckhoff, 300 E. Mallard Drive, Suite 170, Boise, Idaho 83706–6648. WFEC requests that written comments be received by the Friday preceding the scheduled meeting. Attendance is open to the public, but limited space is available. Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Ms. Eckhoff at (202) 527–0133 at least seven calendar days prior to the meeting.
Department of the Interior.
Notice of creation of a new system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Department of the Interior is issuing a public notice of its intent to create the Office of the Secretary Incident Management, Analysis and Reporting System system of records. The Incident Management, Analysis and Reporting System will provide a unified system for Department of the Interior law enforcement agencies to manage law enforcement investigations, measure performance and meet reporting requirements. The Incident Management, Analysis and Reporting System will incorporate current Department of the Interior law enforcement systems utilized by the Bureaus. This newly established system will be included in the Department of the Interior's inventory of record systems.
Comments must be received by September 9, 2013. This new system will be effective September 9, 2013.
Any person interested in commenting on this amendment may do so by: submitting comments in writing to the OS/IBC Privacy Act Officer, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 2650 MIB, Washington, DC 20240; hand-delivering comments to the OS/IBC Privacy Act Officer, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 2650 MIB, Washington, DC 20240 or emailing comments to
System Manager—IMARS, 13461 Sunrise Valley Drive, Herndon, VA 20171, or by phone at 703–793–5091.
The Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of the Secretary, has created an enterprise-wide system, known as the Incident Management, Analysis and Reporting System (IMARS) system of records, to consolidate law enforcement incident management and reporting among the various Bureaus and Offices with law enforcement duties within DOI. IMARS will improve the following capabilities of the Department: prevent, detect and investigate known and suspected criminal activity; protect natural and cultural resources; capture, integrate and share law enforcement and related information and observations from other sources; identify needs (training, resources); measure the performance of law enforcement programs and operations; meet reporting requirements; provide the capability to interface with Department of Homeland Security and National Incident Based Reporting System; analyze and prioritize protection efforts; provide information to justify law enforcement funding requests and expenditures; assist in managing visitor use and protection programs, including training; investigate, detain and apprehend those committing crimes on DOI properties or tribal reservations (for the purpose of this system of records notice, tribal reservations include contiguous areas policed by tribal or Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement offices) managed by a Native American tribe under DOI's Bureau of Indian Affairs; and investigate and prevent visitor accident injuries on DOI properties or tribal reservations.
Incident and non-incident data related to criminal and civil activity will be collected in support of law enforcement, homeland security, and security (physical, personnel and stability, information, and industrial) activities. This may include data documenting investigations and law enforcement activities, traffic safety, traffic accidents and domestic issues, and emergency management, sharing and analysis activities.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, DOI proposes to consolidate the following DOI Privacy Act systems of records: Bureau of Reclamation Law Enforcement Management Information System (RLEMIS)—Interior, WBR–50 (73 FR 62314, October 20, 2008); Fish and Wildlife Service Investigative Case File System—Interior, FWS–20 (48 FR 54719, December 6, 1983); Bureau of Land Management Criminal Case Investigation—Interior, BLM–18 (73 FR 17376, April 1, 2008); Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Enforcement Services—Interior, BIA–18 (70 FR 1264, January 6, 2005); and National Park Service Case Incident Reporting System, NPS–19 (70 FR 1274, January 6, 2005) into one Department of the Interior system of records, titled the Incident Management, Analysis and Reporting System (IMARS). The consolidated system will be maintained by DOI's Office of Law Enforcement Services. The system will be managed by the IMARS Security Manager (the “System Manager”).
In a notice of proposed rulemaking, which is published separately in the
The system will be effective as proposed at the end of the comment period (the comment period will end 40 days after the publication of this notice in the
The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' personal information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency for which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particulars assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act defines an individual as a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. As a matter of policy, DOI extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals. Individuals may request access to their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of DOI by complying with DOI Privacy Act regulations, 43 CFR part 2.
The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DOI has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Incident Management, Analysis and Reporting System, DOI–10.
Interior Business Center, U.S. Department of Interior, 7301 W Mansfield Ave, Denver, CO 80235.
The categories of individuals covered in the system include current and former Federal employees and contractors, Federal, tribal, state and local law enforcement officers. Additionally, this system contains information on members of the general public, including individuals and/or groups of individuals involved with law enforcement incidents involving Federal assets or occurring on public lands and tribal reservations, such as witnesses, individuals making complaints, individuals being investigated or arrested for criminal or traffic offenses, or certain types of non-criminal incidents; and members of the general public involved in an accident on DOI properties or tribal reservations.
The system includes law enforcement incident reports, law enforcement personnel records, and law enforcement training records, which contain the following information: Social Security numbers, drivers license numbers, vehicle identification numbers, license plate numbers, names, home addresses,
Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act, 28 U.S.C. 534; Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–458); Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–296); USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 (Pub. L. 107–56); USA PATRIOT Improvement Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–177); Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–211); Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7—Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection; Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12—Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors; Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies, 28 CFR part 23.
The primary use of the records is for an incident management and reporting application that will enhance the following abilities: prevent, detect and investigate known and suspected criminal activity; protect natural and cultural resources; capture, integrate and share law enforcement and related information and observations from other sources; measure performance of law enforcement programs and management of emergency incidents; meet reporting requirements, provide Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) interface frameworks; analyze and prioritize protection efforts; assist in managing visitor use and protection programs; employee training; enable the ability to investigate, detain and apprehend those committing crimes on DOI properties or tribal reservations; and to investigate and prevent visitor accident injuries on DOI properties or tribal reservations. In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DOI as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(1) (a) To any of the following entities or individuals, when the circumstances set forth in paragraph (b) are met:
(i) The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ);
(ii) A court or an adjudicative or other administrative body;
(iii) A party in litigation before a court or an adjudicative or other administrative body; or
(iv) Any DOI employee acting in his or her individual capacity if DOI or DOJ has agreed to represent that employee or pay for private representation of the employee;
(b) When:
(i) One of the following is a party to the proceeding or has an interest in the proceeding:
(A) DOI or any component of DOI;
(B) Any other Federal agency appearing before the Office of Hearings and Appeals;
(C) Any DOI employee acting in his or her official capacity;
(D) Any DOI employee acting in his or her individual capacity if DOI or DOJ has agreed to represent that employee or pay for private representation of the employee;
(E) The United States, when DOJ determines that DOI is likely to be affected by the proceeding; and
(ii) DOI deems the disclosure to be:
(A) Relevant and necessary to the proceeding; and
(B) Compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
(2) To a congressional office in response to a written inquiry that an individual covered by the system, or the heir of such individual if the covered individual is deceased, has made to the office, to the extent the records have not been exempted from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2).
(3) To the Executive Office of the President in response to an inquiry from that office made at the request of the subject of a record or a third party on that person's behalf, or for a purpose compatible for which the records are collected or maintained, to the extent the records have not been exempted from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2).
(4) To any criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether Federal, State, territorial, local, tribal or foreign) when a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature, and the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
(5) To an official of another Federal agency to provide information needed in the performance of official duties related to reconciling or reconstructing data files or to enable that agency to respond to an inquiry by the individual to whom the record pertains.
(6) To Federal, State, territorial, local, tribal, or foreign agencies that have requested information relevant or necessary to the hiring, firing or retention of an employee or contractor, or the issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant or other benefit, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
(7) To representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration to conduct records management inspections under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(8) To State and local governments and tribal organizations to provide information needed in response to court order and/or discovery purposes related to litigation, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.
(9) To an expert, consultant, or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of DOI that performs services requiring access to these records on DOI's behalf to carry out the purposes of the system.
(10) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) It is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; and
(b) The Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interest, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or
(c) The disclosure is made to such agencies, entities and persons who are reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(11) To the Office of Management and Budget during the coordination and clearance process in connection with legislative affairs as mandated by OMB Circular A–19.
(12) To the Department of the Treasury to recover debts owed to the United States.
(13) To a consumer reporting agency if the disclosure requirements of the Debt Collection Act, as outlined at 31 U.S.C. 3711(e)(1), have been met.
(14) To the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies for the purpose of information exchange on law enforcement activity.
(15) To agency contractors, grantees, or volunteers for DOI or other Federal Departments who have been engaged to assist the Government in the performance of a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other activity related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity.
(16) To any of the following entities or individuals, for the purpose of providing information on traffic accidents, personal injuries, or the loss or damage of property:
(a) Individuals involved in such incidents;
(b) Persons injured in such incidents;
(c) Owners of property damaged, lost or stolen in such incidents; and/or
(d) These individuals' duly verified insurance companies, personal representatives, and/or attorneys.
(17) To any criminal, civil, or regulatory authority (whether Federal, State, territorial, local, tribal or foreign) for the purpose of providing background search information on individuals for legally authorized purposes, including but not limited to background checks on individuals residing in a home with a minor or individuals seeking employment opportunities requiring background checks.
(18) To the news media and the public, with the approval of the System Manager in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor and the Senior Agency Official for Privacy, in support of the law enforcement activities, including obtaining public assistance with identifying and locating criminal suspects and lost or missing individuals, and providing the public with alerts about dangerous individuals.
Electronic records are maintained in password protected removable drives and other user-authenticated, password-protected systems that are compliant with the Federal Information Security Management Act. All records are accessed only by authorized personnel who have a need to access the records in the performance of their official duties. Paper records are contained in file folders stored in file cabinets.
Multiple fields allow retrieval of individual record information including Social Security number, first or last name, badge number, address, phone number, vehicle information and physical attributes.
The records contained in this system are safeguarded in accordance with 43 CFR 2.226 and other applicable security rules and policies. During normal hours of operation, paper records are maintained in locked filed cabinets under the control of authorized personnel. Computerized records systems follow the National Institute of Standards and Technology standards as developed to comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–579), Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–347), and the Federal Information Processing Standards 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems. Computer servers in which electronic records are stored are located in secured Department of the Interior facilities.
Access to records in the system is limited to authorized personnel who have a need to access the records in the performance of their official duties. Electronic data is protected through user identification, passwords, database permissions and software controls. Such security measures establish different access levels for different types of users associated with pre-defined groups and/or bureaus. Each user's access is restricted to only the functions and data necessary to perform that person's job responsibilities. Access can be restricted to specific functions (create, update, delete, view, assign permissions) and is restricted utilizing role-based access.
Authorized users are trained and required to follow established internal security protocols and must complete all security, privacy, and records management training and sign the Rules of Behavior. Contract employees with access to the system are monitored by their Contracting Officer's Technical Representative and the agency Security Manager.
Records in this system are retained and disposed of in accordance with Office of the Secretary Records Schedule 8151, Incident, Management, Analysis and Reporting System, which was approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) (N1–048–09–5), and other NARA approved bureau or office records schedules. The specific record schedule for each type of record or form is dependent on the subject matter and records series. After the retention period has passed, temporary records are disposed of in accordance with the applicable records schedule and DOI policy. Disposition methods include burning, pulping, shredding, erasing and degaussing in accordance with DOI 384 Departmental Manual 1. Permanent records that are no longer active or needed for agency use are transferred to the National Archives for permanent retention in accordance with NARA guidelines.
IMARS Security Manager, 13461 Sunrise Valley Drive, Herndon, VA 20171.
The Department of the Interior is proposing to exempt portions of this system from the notification procedures of the Privacy Act pursuant to sections (j)(2) and (k)(2). An individual requesting notification of the existence of records on himself or herself should send a signed, written inquiry to the System Manager identified above. The request envelope and letter should both be clearly marked “PRIVACY ACT INQUIRY.” A request for notification must meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.235.
The Department of the Interior is proposing to exempt portions of this system from the access procedures of the Privacy Act pursuant to sections (j)(2) and (k)(2). An individual requesting records on himself or herself should send a signed, written inquiry to the System Manager identified above. The request should describe the records sought as specifically as possible. The request envelope and letter should both
The Department of the Interior is proposing to exempt portions of this system from the amendment procedures of the Privacy Act pursuant to sections (j)(2) and (k)(2). An individual requesting corrections or the removal of material from his or her records should send a signed, written request to the System Manager identified above. A request for corrections or removal must meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2.246.
Sources of information in the system include Department, bureau, office, tribal, State and local law officials and management, complainants, informants, suspects, victims, witnesses, visitors to Federal properties, and other Federal agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Department of Justice.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2)) provides general exemption authority for some Privacy Act systems. In accordance with that authority, the Department of the Interior adopted regulations 43 CFR 2.254(a–b). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2) of the Privacy Act, portions of this systems are exempt from the following subsections of the Privacy Act (as found in 5 U.S.C. 552a); (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1) through (e)(3), (e)(4)(G) through (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for Theodore Roosevelt and Holt Collier National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). We provide this notice in compliance with our CCP policy to advise other Federal and State agencies, Native-American tribes, and the public of our intentions, and to obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to consider in the planning process.
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by August 29, 2013.
You may send comments, questions, and requests for information to: Justin Sexton, Refuge Manager, Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge, 595 Yazoo Refuge Road, Hollandale, MS 38748.
Mr. Justin Sexton, at 662/839–2638 (telephone); or you may email Mr. Sexton at,
With this notice, we initiate our process for developing a CCP for Theodore Roosevelt and Holt Collier NWRs in Sharkey and Washington Counties, MS. This notice complies with our CCP policy to: (1) Advise other Federal and State agencies, Native-American tribes, and the public of our intention to conduct detailed planning on this refuge; and (2) obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to consider in the environmental document and during development of the CCP.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd–668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.
Each unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System was established for specific purposes. We use these purposes as the foundation for developing and prioritizing the management goals and objectives for each refuge within the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, and to determine how the public can use each refuge. The planning process is a way for us and the public to evaluate management goals and objectives for the best possible conservation approach to this important wildlife habitat, while providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with the refuge's establishing purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Our CCP process provides participation opportunities for Tribal, State, and local governments; agencies; organizations; and the public. We encourage input in the form of issues, concerns, ideas, and suggestions for the future management of Theodore Roosevelt and Holt Collier NWRs.
We will conduct the environmental review of this project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Both refuges were created “for conservation purposes” (7 U.S.C. 2002). The legislative authority for Holt Collier National Wildlife Refuge also comes from the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661–667e). This refuge consists of approximately 1,439 acres of former Farmers Home Administration (now known as the Farm Service Agency) lands in Washington County. Holt Collier NWR is located near Darlove, MS. The refuge is open year-round for wildlife-related activities such as hunting, wildlife observation, and nature photography. The refuge habitat, formerly consisting of agricultural lands, has been nearly reforested to bottomland hardwoods.
Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge is in Sharkey County. To date, 870 acres have been purchased in fee-title. The habitat consists of: Former, native bottomland hardwoods planted to trees; farmlands; and open water. The refuge is not open to the public. There are no public facilities on either of these refuges.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before August 29, 2013.
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358–2280; or email
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358–2104 (telephone); (703) 358–2280 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to export five male and four female captive-born St. Vincent Parrots (
The applicant requests a permit to export biological samples of Asian elephants (
The applicant requests a permit to export hair samples from captive bred Somali wild ass (
The applicant requests a permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess scimitar-horned oryx (
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Western Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held August 21, 2013. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. with a 30-minute public comment period starting at 11:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 3 p.m.
The meeting will be in the BLM's Butte Field Office, 106 N. Parkmont in Butte, MT.
This 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior on a variety of management issues associated with public land management in Montana. During this meeting the council will participate in/discuss/act upon several topics, including a discussion of the Northern Continental Divide grizzly bear conservation strategy, proposed recreation fees by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, and updates from the BLM's Butte, Missoula and Dillon field offices.
All RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RAC. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
David Abrams, Western Montana Resource Advisory Council Coordinator, Butte Field Office, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, MT 59701, 406–533–7617,
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of surveys.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has officially filed the plats of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, effective 9:00 a.m., on the dates specified.
Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709–1657.
These surveys were executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management to meet their administrative needs. The lands surveyed are:
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the south boundary and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 35, T., 11 N., R., 5 W., of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1362, was accepted June 5, 2013.
The plat representing the entire survey record of the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 34, T., 2 N., R., 17 E., of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1384, was accepted June 14, 2013.
The plat representing the entire survey record of the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 7, and a metes-and-bounds survey in section 7, T., 7 S., R. 35 E., of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1312, was accepted June 24, 2013.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the east boundary, subdivisional lines, and boundaries of certain mineral surveys, and the subdivision of sections 26 and 27, T., 48 N., R. 5 E., of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1275, was accepted June 28, 2013.
This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet their administrative needs. The lands surveyed are:
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the east and north boundaries, subdivisional lines, and subdivision of section 3, and the additional subdivision of section 3, and the subdivision of sections 9 and 12, T. 34 N., R. 2 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1353, was accepted May 9, 2013.
This survey was executed at the request of the Bureau of Reclamation to meet their administrative needs. The lands surveyed are:
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of sections 3, 4, 10, and 11, and the further subdivision of section 4, and metes-and-bounds surveys in sections 3, 4, 10, and 11, T. 2 N., R. 3 E., of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1366, was accepted May 29, 2013.
This survey was executed at the request of the USDA Forest Service to meet their administrative needs. The lands surveyed are:
The field notes representing the remonumentation of certain mile posts and angle points along the boundary between the states of Idaho and Montana, T. 27 N., Rs. 21 and 22 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1500, was approved June 19, 2013.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Hamilton County Department of Parks and Recreation (here after referred to as “Park”) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Park. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Park at the address in this notice by August 29, 2013.
Hamilton County Department of Parks and Recreation, Attn: Mr. Allen Patterson, Director, 15513 South Union Street, Westfield, IN 46033, telephone (317) 770–4400, email
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Park. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Strawtown Koteewi Park, Hamilton County, IN.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the Park professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; and the Shawnee Tribe. The Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, did not participate in the consultation but monitored the process through an agreement with the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.
Between 2001 and 2011, human remains representing, at minimum, 34 individuals were removed from Strawtown Koteewi Park in Hamilton County, IN, during field schools and by professional archaeological teams investigating archaeological sites within the property boundaries. The human remains were recovered primarily from two archaeological locations within the park boundaries, site 12 H 883 (The Strawtown Enclosure) and site 12 H 3 (The Castor Farm site). Additionally, one phalange was recovered from site 12 H 1052 in 2011. During the course of these investigations, multiple isolated human remains and several burials were inadvertently encountered. No intact burials were removed and standard archaeological procedure when encountering a burial involved either: (a) Exposing and documenting the burial or (b) once a burial was encountered, all excavations were halted in the immediate area. All burials were covered again with soils from the excavated area.
In some instances, bone samples were removed from the burials to undergo further archaeological investigation. The bone samples that were recovered are included in the human remains intended for repatriation and are reflected in the minimum number of individuals (MNI). In addition, multiple, presumably secondarily deposited, isolated human remains were encountered during archaeological fieldwork. Often, the isolated human remains were identified in the laboratory post active archaeological fieldwork. These individual elements and fragments were recovered from feature and unit contexts. These items are presumed to have been secondarily deposited after they were prehistorically encountered during construction of houses, storage pits, postholes, etc. Additionally, during the 2002 excavation year, a number of human remains were collected from the back dirt of an active groundhog hole within the enclosure.
A detailed osteological analysis of the human remains as a whole has not been completed. The human remains underwent archaeological processing and analysis under the direction of Indiana University Purdue University at Ft. Wayne and were then turned over to Hamilton County Parks and Recreation. They currently reside at the Taylor Center of Natural History located in Strawtown Koteewi Park, where they are awaiting repatriation in a secure curation facility. No known individuals were identified. The 151 associated funerary objects were removed from the two main excavation sites, as detailed below.
From site 12 H 883, the 115 associated funerary objects are 4 lots of animal bone (burned and unburned); 1 animal incisor tool; 1 antler indeterminate tool; 1 lot of antler non-formal tool; 2 lots of antler projectile point, partial and unrefined; 1 lot of antler tine flakers; 1 antler tine tool; 1 antler toggle; 1 lot of antler tool making debris; 1 bear maxilla; 1 bear tooth; 2 lots of bone awl fragments; 2 lots of bone beamers, partial; 1 bone fish hook fragment; 1 bone indeterminate tool fragment; 1 bone tool fragment; 1 lot of bone tool making debris; 3 lots of burned soil; 1 burned soil or coil tip; 1 chert biface tip; 5 chert bifaces, unrefined; 4 lots of chert core; 4 lots of chert debitage; 1 chert graver fragment; 4 lots of chert non-formal uniface; 2 lots of chert T-base drill; 1 chert triangular projectile point fragment; 2 lots of chert triangular projectile points; 2 lots of detritus; 1 dog skeleton from a dog burial, relatively complete; 1 lot of drill fragments; 4 lots of FCR; 2 lots of fish scale; 4 lots of flora; 1 lot of flotation; 1 lot of formal uniface; 1 lot of hammer stone; 1 lot of hammer stone with ochre residue; 1 lot of humpback knife; 1 lot of intermediate bone tool; 4 lots of light and heavy fraction; 1 modified animal tooth; 1 lot of mussel shell fragments; 1 lot of non-formal uniface; 2 lots of ochre; 1 pestle fragment; 1 pitted stone with ochre residue; 4 lots of pottery sherds; 1 lot of
From site 12 H 3, the 36 associated funerary objects are 2 lots of animal bone (burned and unburned); 1 lot of antler tool making debris; 1 bead (one half); 1 lot of bone beamer; 1 bone tool fragment; 1 chert biface fragment; 3 lots of chert debitage; 1 lot of chert non-formal uniface; 1 conch shell column; 1 cordmarked rim/vessel section; 1 lot of detritus ; 1 elk beamer; 3 lots of FCR; 2 lots of flora; 1 lot of flotation; 2 lots of light and heavy fraction; 1 lot of mussel shell; 1 pendant (incomplete); 3 lots of pottery sherd; 2 lots of quartzite debitage; 1 sandstone abrader; 1 sandstone abrader fragment; 1 lot of shell; 1 shell pendant (claw shaped); 1 lot of soil (burned and unburned); and 1 triangular point fragment.
Officials of the Hamilton County Department of Parks and Recreation have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on archeological evidence.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 34 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 151 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Hamilton County Department of Parks and Recreation, Attn: Mr. Allen Patterson, Director, 15513 South Union Street, Westfield, IN 46033, telephone (317) 770–4400; email
The Park is responsible for notifying the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; and the Shawnee Tribe that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Columbia University, Department of Anthropology, has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to Columbia University. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Columbia University at the address in this notice by August 29, 2013.
Dr. Nan Rothschild, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, telephone (212) 854–4977, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of Columbia University. The human remains were removed from On-A-Slant Village (site 32MO26), Morton County, ND.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Columbia University, Department of Anthropology, professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
In 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were removed from On-A-Slant Village (site 32MO26) in Morton County, ND. The
The human remains were found on the site of a contact-period Mandan settlement called On-A-Slant Village (site 32MO26) on the right bank of the Heart River near its confluence with the Missouri River. Lewis and Clark recorded this site in 1804, as “the remains of a village formerly occupied by the Mandans,” which local people reported as having been abandoned around 1780, due to smallpox and warfare with the Sioux. Records indicate that the descendants of this settlement sometimes lived with members of the Hidatsa and Arikara. Today, the Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan people are represented by the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Officials of Columbia University, Department of Anthropology, have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of, at minimum, 10 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Nan Rothschild, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, 1200 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027, telephone (212) 854–4977, email
The Columbia University, Department of Anthropology, is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington (Burke Museum), has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Burke Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Burke Museum at the address in this notice by August 29, 2013.
Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 35101, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685–3849, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Burke Museum. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Island County, WA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the Burke Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation; Samish Indian Nation (previously listed as the Samish Indian Tribe, Washington); Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe; Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington); Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington; Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington); and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
Between 1953 and 1955, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 45–IS–77 in Island County, WA. The human remains were removed during a University of Washington Department of Anthropology Field Project led by Allan Bryan, and the human remains were accessioned by the Burke Museum in 1966 (Burke Accn. #1966–94). While six burials were excavated, the Burke Museum only holds the remains for
Burial methods at the site were varied and included the use of long and short wooden box coffins. The remains were found extended, or in flexed and semi-flexed positions, on the back and side. There was also evidence of cremation at the site. The burials appear to be from a contact time period, as evidenced by the transition into European burial customs and the presence of post-contact artifacts. One of the burials was dated to 1876 or later based on the presence of an 1876 coin.
In 1962, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from south of site 45–IS–14 in Island County, WA. The remains were removed by Richard Arild Johnson and donated to the Burke Museum in 1962 (Burke Accn. #1963–24). No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is 1 lot/bag of pebbles, dirt and shell fragments.
In 1953, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from site 45–IS–13 on Snatelum Point in Island County, WA. The human remains were removed during a University of Washington Department of Anthropology Field Project led by Allan Bryan, and the human remains were accessioned by the Burke Museum in 1966 (Burke Accn. #1966–94). The human remains were loaned to the University of Washington Anthropology Department at an unknown date. The human remains were discovered in the Anthropology Department, stored with the physical anthropology remains in June 2010, and were then returned to the Burke Museum. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1926, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from San de Fuca in Island County, WA. The human remains were removed by John Armstrong from a shell mound near the site of old potlatch house and donated to the Burke Museum in 1926 (Burke Accn. #2122). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Careless Bay in Island County, WA. The human remains were removed by Bob Atwell and Emil Gabeline and subsequently donated to the Burke Museum (Burke Accn. #1963–50). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1941, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Utsalady on Camano Island in Island County, WA. The human remains were removed by Dr. Alfred E. Hudson and University of Washington archeology students. The human remains were accessioned by the Burke Museum in 1941 (Burke Accn. #3361). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
All of the human remains described above were removed from sites in the Penn Cove area on Whidbey Island or on the northwestern shore of Camano Island. Several sites are documented archeological or shell midden sites. The human remains in this notice have been determined to be Native American based on a combination of archaeological, geographic, or physical anthropology evidence.
Linguistically, Native American speakers of the Northern dialect of the Lushootseed language claim cultural heritage to the Northern Puget Sound area. Culturally, Native Americans from the Northern Puget Sound area are members of Southern Coast Salish tribes. Historical and anthropological sources (Deur 2009, Mooney 1896, Roberts 1975, Ruby and Brown 1986, Spier 1936, Swanton 1952) indicate that the Kikiallus, Swinomish, Lower Skagit, and Stillaguamish peoples occupied and had village sites in the Penn Cove area and on the northwestern shore of Camano Island. Although the Indian Claims Commission determined that the sites near Penn Cove on Whidbey Island fell within the aboriginal territory of the Lower Skagit, shortly after 1855, anthropologists and historians described this area as a mixed community. Penn Cove was one of the communities Stillaguamish and other tribes were told to move to after being forced to leave their villages on the mainland (Deur 2009, Grady 2012).
Today, descendants of Kikiallus are members of the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington); Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington; and the Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington). Today, the Lower Skagit are primarily members of the Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington and the Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington).
Officials of the Burke Museum have determined that:
• Based on archaeological evidence, the human remains have been determined to be Native American.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of seven individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 33 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington); Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington; and the Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 35101, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685–3849, email
The Burke Museum is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources at the address in this notice by August 29, 2013.
Judith Deel, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 179, Jefferson City, MO 65101, telephone (573) 751–7862.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, MO. The human remains were removed from Clarksville, in Pike County, MO.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; and the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa.
Between 1962 and 1996, human remains representing, at minimum, 29 individuals were removed from the Clarksville Mound Group (site 23PI6) in Pike County, MO. The Clarksville Mound Group was originally recorded in 1952 and described as a group of six mounds. In 1962, the site was bulldozed in order to develop a sky-ride and tourist attraction, and five of the six mounds were destroyed. One accretion mound survived, under the sky-ride platform, and was incorporated into the commercial operation. Verbal and newspaper accounts report large numbers of human remains were removed or destroyed at the time, and some human remains were displayed as a part of the tourist attraction.
In 1995 and 1996, the City of Clarksville, the owner of the site, contacted the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for assistance after terminating the lease to the tourist attraction. Human remains were eroding out of the damaged mound, and due to the severity of the erosion problem, the SHPO and the City of Clarksville decided to undertake excavations to remove the threatened burials. The excavations were expanded as more burials were discovered. During the excavation, human remains representing, at minimum, 22 individuals were removed from the site. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are one lot of ancalusa shell beads and one Scallorn point. In 2002, additional human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were transferred to the SHPO by a local collector who had been on the site in 1962. In 2006, additional human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were transferred to the SHPO by the University of Missouri-Columbia.
The area of Pike County, MO, was ceded by the Sauk and Fox in a series of treaties with the United States between 1804 and 1816. The Sauk and Fox are represented by the present day Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; and the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa. Cultural affiliation was determined based on tribal history and the historical association of these tribes to the counties bordering the Mississippi River, including Pike County, MO.
Officials of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 29 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; and the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Judith Deel, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 179, Jefferson City, MO 65101, telephone (573) 751–7862, by August 29, 2013. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects the Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; and the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa may proceed.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources is responsible for notifying the Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; and the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology at the address in this notice by August 29, 2013.
Anne Amati, University of Denver Museum of Anthropology, 2000 E. Asbury Avenue, Denver, CO 80208, telephone (303) 871–2687, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology, Denver, CO. The human remains were removed from unknown sites in Costilla, Alamosa, and Saguache Counties, CO.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
In 1933, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from an unknown site in Costilla County, CO. The human remains were removed by E.B. Renaud of the University of Denver Department of Anthropology during a University of Denver sponsored archeological expedition. Both individuals are adult males. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown site near Great Sand Dunes in Alamosa or Saguache Counties, CO. They were removed by Theodore Sowers, a student of E.B. Renaud's at the University of Denver Department of Anthropology. Mr. Sowers' daughters donated the human remains to the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology in August 1995. The individual is an adult. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1981, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Bunker Ranch in Alamosa County, CO. The human remains were recovered from an exposed road cut by Dr. Jonathan Haas of the University of Denver Department of Anthropology. The individual is an adult male. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on inscriptions on the remains, museum records, and the findings of a physical anthropologist employed by the University of Denver prior to November 1995.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anne Amati, University of Denver Museum of Anthropology, 2000 E Asbury Avenue, Denver, CO, telephone (303) 871–2687, email
The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology is responsible for notifying the Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology at the address in this notice by August 29, 2013.
Anne Amati, University of Denver Museum of Anthropology, 2000 E. Asbury Avenue, Denver, CO 80208, telephone (303) 871–2687, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology, Denver, CO. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Colfax County, NM.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
In 1929, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Cave 6, on the T.O. Ranch in Colfax County, NM. They were removed by E.B. Renaud of the University of Denver Department of Anthropology during an expedition sponsored by the Colorado Museum of Natural History, now the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. In 2012, 1 tooth and 2 lithic flakes were found in the collection at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, and identified as belonging with the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology individual and associated funerary objects from Cave 6, T.O. Ranch, whereupon they were relocated to the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology. No known individuals were identified. The 210 associated funerary objects are 9 bone awls, 1 antler flaker, 124 bone beads, 53 chipped stone tools, 1 stone pounder, 1 metate, 19 lithic flakes, and 2 choppers.
Officials of the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on inscriptions on the remains, associated funerary objects, and the findings of a physical anthropologist employed by the University of Denver prior to 1995.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 210 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; and the White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; and the White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anne Amati, University of Denver Museum of Anthropology, 2000 E. Asbury Avenue, Denver, CO 80208, telephone (303) 871–2687, email
The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology is responsible for notifying the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe); Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; and the White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that a cultural item listed in this notice meets the definition of sacred object. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request to the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural item to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology at the address in this notice by August 29, 2013.
David Phillips, Curator of Archaeology, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, MSC01 1050, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, telephone (505) 277–9229.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate a cultural item under the control of the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, that meet the definition of sacred objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural item. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In 1970, a private collector donated a small collection of items to the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico. One item, catalogue number 70.77.8, is a ceremonial bandolier reported to be from the Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo), and possibly used as late as 1970. In 2013, a delegation from the Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo) inspected the bandolier, confirmed that it was a sacred object from their tribe, and requested its return.
The Collections and Research Committee of the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology has determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred object and the Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to David Phillips, Curator of Archaeology, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, MSC01 1050, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM 87131, telephone (505) 277–9229 by August 29, 2013. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer
The Maxwell Museum is responsible for notifying Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo) that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Monterey Museum of Art, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Monterey Museum of Art. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Monterey Museum of Art at the address in this notice by August 29, 2013.
John Rexine, Registrar, Monterey Museum of Art, 559 Pacific St., Monterey, CA 93940, telephone (831) 372–5477, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Monterey Museum of Art that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In approximately the 1940s or 1950s, 193 cultural items of ivory, bone, wood, and stone were removed from the Iyatet site, in Nome County, AK, by anthropologist Mr. J.L. Giddings and local guide Mr. Louis Nakarak. The objects were subsequently purchased by Mr. William Holman of Pacific Grove, CA. Mr. Holman then donated the objects to the Monterey Museum of Art on November 20, 1978. The 193 objects of cultural patrimony are 42 harpoon or projectile points, 38 pendants or beads, 3 fire-starters, 4 hand tools, 6 fishing weights, 37 carvings, 1 scraper, 3 dogsled runners, 1 club, 4 needles or awls, and 54 other objects made of ivory, bone, wood and stone.
In the 1978 Deed of Gift to the Monterey Museum of Art, Mr. Holman notes that the objects were excavated from a site 125 miles east of Nome, AK, and were said to date to 6,000 years or more before present. The location and site of Iyatet matches this description, and the Native Village of Shaktoolik in Nome County, AK, is the nearest community that claims cultural affiliation with the site and with the objects of cultural patrimony removed from the site. The Native Village of Shaktoolik has made a claim to these objects and, through consultation, has provided information in support of that claim.
Officials of the Monterey Museum of Art have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the 193 cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the objects of cultural patrimony and the Native Village of Shaktoolik.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to John Rexine, Registrar, Monterey Museum of Art, 559 Pacific St., Monterey, CA 93940, telephone (831) 372–5477, email
The Monterey Museum of Art is responsible for notifying the Native Village of Shaktoolik that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural item listed in this notice meets the definition of sacred object. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim the cultural item should submit a written request to Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural item to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim the cultural item should submit a
Denice Swanke, Superintendent, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, P.O. Box 39, Crow Agency, MT 59022–0039, telephone (406) 638–3201, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate a cultural item under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, Crow Agency, MT, that meets the definition of sacred object under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument.
In 1951, one cultural item was donated to Custer Battlefield National Monument, now known as Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, by the Rapid City Indian Museum of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Rapid City, SD, which had collected the item from John A. Anderson. It is believed that Anderson moved to the Rosebud Reservation in 1889 where he worked for the C.P. Jordan Trading Post and as a photographer. Later, after Mr. Jordan retired, Anderson became the owner/manager of the trading post. Over a span of 45 years, Anderson acquired historic objects through trade or purchase that represented the life ways of the area people. The one sacred object is a red catlinite pipe that originally belonged to, and was used by, the Lakota Chief Hollow Horn Bear. The bowl is slightly ornamented with carvings toward the stem and the stem is carved at each end.
Duane Hollow Horn Bear, great-grandson of Chief Hollow Horn Bear, is requesting repatriation of the cultural item described above. The pipe is needed by Mr. Hollow Horn Bear to continue traditional ceremonies. The Rosebud Sioux Tribal Historic Preservation Office corroborated Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument's determination that Duane Hollow Horn Bear is the most appropriate recipient under the Rosebud traditional kinship system and common law system of descendance.
Officials of Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument have determined that
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the one cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3005(a)(5)(A), Mr. Duane Hollow Horn Bear is the direct lineal descendant of the individual who owned the sacred object.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Denice Swanke, Superintendent, Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, P.O. Box 39, Crow Agency, MT 59022–0039, telephone (406) 638–3201, email
Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument is responsible for notifying the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe (previously listed as the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota); Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota that this notice has been published.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Public Notice of an Unsolicited Request for an OCS Research Lease; Request for Competitive Interest (RFCI); and Request for Public Comment.
The purpose of this public notice is to: (1) Describe the proposal submitted to BOEM by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) to acquire an OCS lease for wind energy research activities; (2) solicit indications of interest in a renewable energy lease in the area identified by DMME for substantially similar wind energy activities; and (3) solicit public input regarding the proposal, its potential environmental consequences, and the use of the area in which the proposed project would be located.
On February 13, 2013, BOEM received an unsolicited request for a research lease from DMME. The objective of DMME is to obtain a lease under 30 CFR 585.238 for renewable energy research activities, including wind turbine installation and operational testing and the installation of metocean monitoring equipment. The objective of the DMME proposal is to design, develop, and demonstrate a grid-connected 12 megawatt (MW) offshore wind test facility on the OCS off the coast of Virginia.
This RFCI is published pursuant to subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act, as amended by section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3)), and the implementing regulations at 30 CFR Part 585.
If you are submitting an indication of interest in acquiring a renewable energy lease for the area proposed by DMME, your submission must be sent by mail, postmarked no later than August 29, 2013 for your
If you are submitting comments or other information concerning the proposed research lease area, you may use either of the following two methods:
1.
2.
If you wish to protect the confidentiality of your indication of interest or comment, clearly mark the relevant sections and request that BOEM treat them as confidential. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment. Treatment of confidential information is addressed in the section of this notice entitled, “Privileged or Confidential Information.” BOEM will post all comments on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Mr. Casey Reeves, Renewable Energy Program Specialist, BOEM, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 381 Elden Street, HM–1328, Herndon, Virginia 20170; phone (703) 787–1320.
Responses to this public notice will allow BOEM to determine, pursuant to subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act, whether or not there is competitive interest in acquiring an OCS renewable energy lease in the area requested by DMME. If BOEM receives no competing indications of interest for a lease in response to this notice, BOEM may decide to move forward with the research leasing process using the procedures described in 30 CFR 585.238(d).
This notice also provides an opportunity for interested stakeholders to comment on the proposed project and its potential impacts. BOEM will consider all comments received when deciding whether and how to move forward with the research leasing process.
DMME's proposed research activities are described in their unsolicited request for a research lease, which is available at the following URL:
The proposed research lease area consists of six OCS sub-blocks (an OCS sub-block is 1,200 meters by 1,200 meters in area). The following table describes the OCS sub-blocks that comprise the proposed research lease area.
A map of the area proposed by DMME and included in this RFCI can be found at the following URL:
The six sub-blocks requested by DMME are located immediately adjacent to the western edge of the Virginia Wind Energy Area (WEA). The Virginia WEA, which consists of more than 19 full OCS blocks, will be offered for sale in lease sale Atlantic Wind One (ATLW1), as described in the following section.
On July 23, 2013, BOEM published a Final Sale Notice (FSN) in the
The area identified for potential commercial wind leasing in the PSN was delineated through consultation with the BOEM's Virginia Intergovernmental Task Force and is intended to balance the protection of environmentally sensitive areas and minimize space-use conflicts while maximizing the area available for commercial offshore wind development. The development of the WEA began in December 2009 and the WEA has been refined since that time, resulting in a area that avoids sensitive ecological areas offshore the barrier islands, takes advantage of Class 6 wind speeds, minimizes maritime traffic risk, avoids military operating and warning areas, and avoids a launch fallout area east of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Wallops Flight Facility.
The delineation of the VA WEA was also informed by input received from stakeholders who commented on the July 12, 2011, Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) (76 FR 40926). Among the comments received on the draft EA was a letter dated August 22, 2011, from the American Waterways Operators (AWO), a national trade association for the tugboat, towboat and barge industry. The comment requested that BOEM refrain from leasing OCS Blocks 6011, 6061, 6111, 6161, 6110, and 6160, suggesting that not leasing these blocks would “preserve an area currently used by [AWO] members during inclement weather.” Based on this concern and on an analysis of ship traffic data for larger vessels that transit the area, as well as an assessment conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard, BOEM removed these OCS blocks from consideration for commercial wind leasing prior to the publication of the Virginia Call for Information and Nominations (77 FR 5545).
In light of the concerns expressed by AWO, at this time BOEM is not
On March 31, 2011, Atlantic Grid Holdings LLC submitted an unsolicited application for a ROW grant, for a buried offshore electrical transmission cable and infrastructure. A segment of the proposed cable project that is intended to support commercial development in the Virginia WEA also occupies the project area proposed by DMME. Following publication of a notice to determine competitive interest in the project, BOEM published its determination of no competitive interest on May 15, 2012, (77 FR 28620). The application and associated notices can be found at:
If you intend to submit an indication of interest for a renewable energy lease for the area identified in this notice you must provide the following:
(1) A statement that you wish to acquire an offshore wind lease within the proposed lease area. For BOEM to consider your indication of interest, it must include a proposal for the installation of no more than two WTGs, and may include a proposal for the installation of one or more metocean facilities. Any interest in an area located outside of the proposed research lease area should be submitted separately pursuant to 30 CFR 585.238;
(2) A general description of your objectives and the facilities that you would use to achieve those objectives;
(3) A general schedule of proposed activities;
(4) Available and pertinent data and information concerning renewable energy resources and environmental conditions in the area that you wish to lease, including energy and resource data and information used to evaluate the area of interest. Where applicable, spatial information should be submitted in a format compatible with ArcGIS 9.3 in a geographic coordinate system (NAD 83);
(5) Documentation demonstrating that you are legally qualified to hold a renewable energy lease as set forth in 30 CFR 585.106 and 107. Examples of the documentation appropriate for demonstrating your legal qualifications and related guidance can be found in Chapter 2 and Appendix B of the Guidelines for the Minerals Management Service Renewable Energy Framework available at:
(6) Documentation demonstrating that you are technically and financially capable of constructing, operating, maintaining and decommissioning the facilities described in your submission. Guidance regarding the required documentation to demonstrate your technical and financial qualifications can be found at:
It is critical that you provide a complete submission of competitive interest, including the items identified in (1) through (6), so that BOEM may consider your submission in a timely manner. If BOEM reviews your submission and determines that it is incomplete, BOEM will inform you of this determination in writing and describe the information that BOEM wishes you to provide in order for BOEM to deem your submission complete. You will be given 15 business days from the date of the letter to provide the information that BOEM found to be missing from your original submission. If you do not meet this deadline, or if BOEM determines your second submission is also insufficient, BOEM may deem your submission invalid. In such a case, BOEM would not consider your submission.
BOEM is also requesting from the public and other interested or affected parties specific and detailed comments regarding the following:
(1) Geological and geophysical conditions (including bottom and shallow hazards) in the area described in this notice;
(2) Known archaeological, historic, and/or cultural resource sites on the seabed in the area described in this notice;
(3) Multiple uses of the area described in this notice, including navigation (in particular, commercial vessel usage, recreation, and commercial and recreational fisheries);
(4) Potential impacts to existing communication cables;
(5) Department of Defense operational, training and testing activities (surface and subsurface) that occur in the area described in this notice that may be impacted by the proposed project;
(6) Impacts to potential future uses of the area;
(7) Advisable setback distance for other offshore structures, including other cables, renewable energy structures, oil and gas structures, etc.;
(8) The potential risk posed by anchors or other factors, and burial depths that would be required to mitigate such risks; and
(9) Other relevant environmental and socioeconomic information.
BOEM will protect privileged or confidential information that you submit as required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 of FOIA applies to trade secrets and commercial or financial information that you submit that is privileged or confidential. If you wish to protect the confidentiality of such information, clearly mark it and request that BOEM treat it as confidential. BOEM will not disclose such information, subject to the requirements of FOIA. Please label privileged or confidential information, “Contains Confidential Information,” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment.
However, BOEM will not treat as confidential any aggregate summaries of such information or comments not containing such information. Additionally, BOEM will not treat as confidential: (1) The legal title of the nominating entity; or (2) the geographic location of facilities and the types of those facilities. Information that is not labeled as privileged or confidential will be regarded by BOEM as suitable for public release.
BOEM is required, after consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to withhold the location, character, or ownership of historic resources, if it determines that disclosure may, among other things, cause a significant invasion of privacy, risk harm to the historic resources or impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. Tribal entities and other interested parties should designate information that they wish to be held as `confidential.'
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping investigation No. 731–TA–1205 (Final) under section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of less-than-fair-value imports from China of silica bricks and shapes, provided for primarily in statistical reporting numbers 6902.20.1020 and 6902.20.5020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
The scope of this investigation does not cover refractory bricks and shapes, regardless of size, that are made, in part, from non-crystalline silica (commonly referred to as fused silica) where the silica content is less than 50 percent, by weight crystalline silica.”
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigation, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Cynthia Trainor (202–205–3354), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation and scheduling of public hearing.
Following receipt of a letter from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) dated June 13, 2013 (received on June 18, 2013), under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) instituted investigation No. 332–541, Trade Barriers that U.S. Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Perceive as Affecting Exports to the European Union.
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project Leader William Deese (202–205–2626 or
The letter indicated that the United States, in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations, will seek to strengthen U.S.-European Union (EU) cooperation to enhance the participation of SMEs in transatlantic trade, and to address trade barriers that may disproportionately impact small businesses.
As requested by the USTR, the Commission (1) will base its report on available information, including information furnished by SMEs and interested parties following the Commission's notice of investigation; (2) will address, where information is available, specific trade barriers in individual EU member states; (3) will provide, to the extent applicable,
Any submissions that contain confidential business information (CBI) must also conform to the requirements of section 201.6 of the
In the request letter, the USTR stated that the Office of the USTR intends to make the Commission's reports available to the public in their entirety, and asked that the Commission not include any confidential business information or national security classified information in the report that the Commission sends to the USTR. Any confidential business information received by the Commission in this investigation and used in preparing this report will not be published in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
By order of the Commission.
On July 19, 2013, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in the lawsuit entitled
The plaintiffs alleged that BASF Corporation, as successor in interest to BASF Performance Products LLC (f/k/a Ciba Corporation, f/k/a Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation), is liable under CERCLA and the Clean Water Act for damages for injury to, loss of, or destruction of natural resources under the trusteeship of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the Geological Survey of Alabama. The claims arise from releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, including the pesticide DDT and its degradation products, from a chemical production facility at the Ciba-Geigy Corporation (McIntosh Plant) Superfund Site near McIntosh, Washington County, Alabama. The consent decree requires BASF Corporation to pay $3.2 million into the Mobile Bay Watershed/Ciba-Geigy Site (AL) Restoration Account; $500,000 to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Game and Fish Fund; and $1.3 million to DOI and NOAA as reimbursement for damage assessment costs. Under the consent decree, the plaintiffs covenant not to sue or take civil judicial or administrative action against BASF Corporation under CERCLA or the Clean Water Act to recover natural resource damages related to the Site.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $8.25 (25 cents per page
This Notice amends and replaces the original notice published on July 17, 2013, 78 FR 137. Notice is hereby given that on July 9, 2013, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division in the lawsuit entitled
The United States had filed a complaint against Stewart Gammill (Mr. Gammill) and his spouse Lynn Crosby Gammill (Mrs. Gammill) on April 30, 2012. The complaint alleged claims of the United States against Mr. and Mrs. Gammill under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for recovery of unreimbursed costs incurred by the United States with respect to the Picayune Wood Treating Superfund Site located in Picayune, Pearl River County, Mississippi (the Site). Mr. Gammill is liable as a past owner and operator of Crosby Wood Preserving Company a woodtreating facility on a portion of the Site from 1964 through at least 1970.
The United States has agreed to resolve the claims against Stewart Gammill III on an ability to pay basis. Under the proposed Consent Decree, Mr. Gammill will pay two million dollars ($2,000,000) in no more than two installments with the first installment payment of no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) due within 60 days of the Decree entry. The subsequent installment payment of the remaining balance is due 120 days after the effective date and shall include an additional sum for interest accrued on the unpaid portion of the principal amount.
Under the proposed Consent Decree, the United States covenants not to sue under CERCLA Sections 106 and 107 subject to statutory reopeners and other reserved rights. The covenants are conditioned upon the satisfactory performance of all obligations under the Consent Decree and upon the veracity and completeness of all financial information provided by Mr. Gammill. The United States is still pursuing its claim against Mrs. Gammill in this action.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $4.75 (25 cents per page reproduction costs for 19 pages) payable to the United States Treasury.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, will be submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “thirty days” until September 30, 2013. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Chris Casto at Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 or by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Primary: BJA's CBOB Office will use the CBOB application information to confirm the eligibility of applicants to be considered for the CBOB, and forward the application as appropriate to the Federal or the State and Local CBOB Board for their further consideration. In General—A Federal/State and Local agency head many nominate for a Federal/State and Local Law Enforcement Badge and individual—(1) who is a Federal/State and Local law enforcement officer working within the agency of the Federal/State and Local agency head making the nomination; and (2) who—(A)(i) sustained a physical injury while—(I) engaged in the lawful duties of the individual; and (II) performing an act characterized as bravery by the Federal/State and Local agency head making the nomination; and (ii) put the individual at personal risk when the injury described in clause (i) occurred; or (B) while not injured, performed and act characterized as bravery by the Federal/State and Local agency head making the nomination that placed the individual at risk of serious physical injury or death. The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs' Bureau of Justice Assistance has been authorized to administer the Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery (CBOB) Program.
Others: None.
(5)
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection is 61 hours. Total Annual Reporting Burden: 184 × 20 minutes per application = 3680 minutes/by 60 minutes per hour = 61 hours.
If additional information is required, please contact Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3W–1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “High-Voltage Continuous Mining Machines Standards for Underground Coal Mines,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Submit comments on or before August 29, 2013.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202–395–6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This information collection supports safe use of high-voltage continuous mining machines (HVCMM) in underground coal mines by requiring records of testing, examination and maintenance on machines to reduce fire, electrical shock, ignition, and operational hazards. Coal mine supervisors and employees, State mine inspectors, and Federal mine inspectors use the records to document whether mine operators have conducted examinations and tests and have given insight into hazardous conditions encountered or that may be encountered. The records of inspections greatly assist those who use them in making decisions that will ultimately affect the safety of miners working with HVCMM. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA, because the information collection is included in a rule of general applicability, 30 CFR part 75.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2013. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. It should also be noted that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA).
The U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), is making $550,000 available in grant funds for educational and training programs to help identify, avoid, and prevent unsafe working conditions in and around mines. The focus of these grants for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 will be on training and training materials for mine emergency preparedness and mine emergency prevention for all underground mines. Applicants for the grants may be States and nonprofit (private or public) entities.
The number of grants awarded will be determined by MSHA's evaluation of grant applications. The amount of each individual grant will be at least $50,000.00. The maximum amount for a 12-month period of performance is $150,000. MSHA will not be awarding renewal (two-year) grants in FY 2013 under this solicitation for grant applications (SGA). This notice contains all of the information needed to apply for grant funding, including for those eligible grantees which were awarded a 2012 renewal grant.
The closing date for applications will be August 31, 2013, (no later than 11:59 p.m. EDST). MSHA will award grants on or before September 30, 2013.
Applications for grants submitted under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Government-wide site at
Any questions regarding this solicitation for grant applications (SGA 13–3BS) should be directed to Robert Glatter at
This solicitation provides background information and the requirements for projects funded under the solicitation. This solicitation consists of nine parts:
• Part I provides background information on the Brookwood-Sago grants.
• Part II describes the size and nature of the anticipated awards.
• Part III describes the qualifications of an eligible applicant.
• Part IV provides information on the application and submission process for FY 2013 annual grants.
• Part V explains the review process and rating criteria that will be used to evaluate the FY 2013 applications.
• Part VI provides information for FY 2012 renewal grantees to apply for FY 2013 funding.
• Part VII provides award administration information.
• Part VIII contains MSHA contact information.
• Part IX addresses Office of Management and Budget information collection requirements.
Responding to several coal mine disasters, Congress enacted the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER Act). When Congress passed the MINER Act, it expected that requirements for new and advanced technology, e.g., fire-resistant lifelines and increased breathable air availability in escapeways, would increase safety in mines. The MINER Act also required that every underground coal mine have persons trained in emergency response. Congress emphasized its commitment to training for mine emergencies when it strengthened the requirements for the training of mine rescue teams. Recent events demonstrate that training is the key for proper and safe emergency response and that all miners working underground should be trained in emergency response.
Under Section 14 of the MINER Act, the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) is required to establish a competitive grant program called the “Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants” (Brookwood-Sago grants). This program provides funding of education and training programs to better identify, avoid, and prevent unsafe working conditions in and around mines. This program will use grant funds to establish and implement education and training programs or to create training materials and programs. The MINER Act requires the Secretary to give priority to mine safety demonstrations and pilot projects with broad applicability. It also mandates that the Secretary emphasize programs and materials that target miners in smaller mines, including training mine operators and miners on new MSHA standards, high-risk activities, and other identified safety priorities.
MSHA has funded the Brookwood-Sago grants annually for 12 months of performance through two types of grants. For the first type, “annual grants,” MSHA requires an applicant to compete each year for the available funds. For the second type, “renewal
MSHA priorities for the FY 2013 funding of the annual Brookwood-Sago grants will focus on training or training materials for mine emergency preparedness and mine emergency prevention for all underground mines. MSHA expects Brookwood-Sago annual grantees to develop training materials or to develop and provide mine safety training or educational programs, recruit mine operators and miners for the training, and conduct and evaluate the training.
MSHA expects Brookwood-Sago grantees to conduct follow-up evaluations with the people who received training in their programs to measure how the training promotes the Secretary's goal of ensuring a safe and healthy workplace. The evaluation will focus on determining how effective their training was in either reducing hazards, improving skills for the selected training topics, or in improving the conditions in mines. Grantees must also cooperate fully with MSHA evaluators of their programs.
MSHA is providing $550,000 to award new FY 2013 annual grants and to fund the second year of eligible FY 2012 renewal grants. The number of grants awarded will be determined by MSHA's evaluation of grant applications. The amount of each individual grant will be no less than $50,000.00 for a 12-month performance period; and the maximum award for a 12-month performance period is $150,000. Applicants requesting less than $50,000 or more than $150,000 for a 12-month performance period will not be considered for funding.
For annual awards, MSHA may approve a request for a one time no-cost extension to grantees for an additional period of up to 12 months from the expiration date of the annual award based on the success of the project and other relevant factors. See 29 CFR 95.25(e)(2). At the end of the second year of funding for a FY 2012 renewal grant, MSHA may approve a request for a no-cost extension for an additional period of performance of up to 12 months based on the success of the project and other relevant factors.
Applicants for the grants may be States and nonprofit (private or public) entities. Eligible entities may apply for funding independently or in partnership with other eligible organizations. For partnerships, a lead organization must be identified.
Applicants other than States and State-supported or local government-supported institutions of higher education will be required to submit evidence of nonprofit status, preferably from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). A nonprofit entity as described in 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4), which engages in lobbying activities, is not eligible for a grant award. See 2 U.S.C. 1611.
Cost-sharing or matching of funds is not required for eligibility.
Under 2 CFR 25.200(b)(3), every applicant for a Federal grant funding opportunity is required to include a DUNS with its application. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number that uniquely identifies business entities. An applicant's DUNS number is to be entered into Block 8 of Standard Form (SF) 424. There is no charge for obtaining a DUNS number. To obtain a DUNS number, call 1–866–705–5711 or access the following Web site:
After receiving a DUNS number, all grant applicants must also register as a vendor with the System for Award Management (SAM) through the Web site at
The Government generally is prohibited from providing direct Federal financial assistance for inherently religious activities. See 29 CFR Part 2, Subpart D. Grants under this solicitation may not be used for religious instruction, worship, prayer, proselytizing, or other inherently religious activities. Neutral, non-religious criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion will be employed in the selection of grant recipients and must be employed by grantees in the selection of contractors and subcontractors.
Applications for new FY 2013 annual grants that are lacking any of the required elements or do not follow the format prescribed in IV.B will not be reviewed.
Applications received after the deadline will not be reviewed unless it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.
This announcement includes all information and links needed to apply for this funding opportunity. (The information regarding the second-year funding of the FY 2012 renewal grants is located in Part VI.) The full application is available through the Grants.gov Web site
The full application package is also available on-line at
Each grant application must address mine emergency preparedness or mine emergency prevention for underground mines. The application must consist of three separate and distinct sections. The three required sections are:
• Section 1—Project Forms and Financial Plan (No page limit).
• Section 2—Executive Summary (Not to exceed two pages).
• Section 3—Technical Proposal (Not to exceed 12 pages). Illustrative material can be submitted as an attachment.
The following are mandatory requirements for each section.
This section contains the forms and budget section of the application. The Project Financial Plan will not count against the application page limits. A person with authority to bind the applicant must sign the grant application and forms. Applications submitted electronically through Grants.gov do not need to be signed manually; electronic signatures will be accepted.
(a) Completed SF–424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” This form is part of the application package on Grants.gov and is also available at
(b) Completed SF–424A, “Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs.” The project budget should demonstrate clearly that the total amount and distribution of funds is sufficient to cover the cost of all major project activities identified by the applicant in its proposal, and must comply with the Federal cost principles and the administrative requirements set forth in this SGA. (Copies of all regulations that are referenced in this SGA are available on-line at
(c) Budget Narrative. The applicant must provide a concise narrative explaining the request for funds. The budget narrative should separately attribute the Federal funds to each of the activities specified in the technical proposal and it should discuss precisely how any administrative costs support the project goals. Administrative costs may not exceed 15% of the total grant budget. Indirect cost charges must be supported with a copy of an approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement.
If applicable, the applicant must provide a statement about its program income.
The amount of Federal funding requested for the entire period of performance must be shown on the SF–424 and SF–424A forms.
(d) Completed SF–424B, “Assurances for Non-Construction Programs.” Each applicant for these grants must certify compliance with a list of assurances. This form is part of the application package on
(e) Supplemental Certification Regarding Lobbying Activities Form. If any funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the making of a grant or cooperative agreement, the applicant shall complete and submit SF–LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions. This form is part of the application package on
(f) Non-profit status. Applicants must provide evidence of non-profit status, preferably from the IRS, if applicable.
(g) Accounting System Certification. An organization that receives less than $1 million annually in Federal grants must attach a certification stating that the organization (directly or through a designated qualified entity) has a functioning accounting system that meets the criteria below. The certification should attest that the organization's accounting system provides for the following:
(1) Accurate, current and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federally sponsored project.
(2) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for Federally sponsored activities.
(3) Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property, and other assets.
(4) Comparison of outlays with budget amounts.
(5) Written procedures to minimize the time elapsing between transfers of funds.
(6) Written procedures for determining the reasonableness, allocability, and allowability of cost.
(7) Accounting records, including cost accounting records that are supported by source documentation.
(h) Attachments. The application may include attachments such as resumes of key personnel or position descriptions, exhibits, information on prior government grants, and signed letters of commitment to the project.
The executive summary is a short one-to-two page abstract that succinctly summarizes the proposed project. MSHA will publish, as submitted, all grantees' executive summaries on the DOL Web site. The executive summary must include the following information:
(a) Applicant. Provide the organization's full legal name and address.
(b) Funding requested. List how much Federal funding is being requested.
(c) Grant Topic. List the grant topic and the location and number of mine operators and miners that the organization has selected to train or describe the training materials or equipment to be created with these funds.
(d) Program Structure. Identify the type of grant as annual.
(e) Summary of the Proposed Project. Write a brief summary of the proposed project. This summary must identify the key points of the proposal, including an introduction describing the project activities and the expected results.
The technical proposal must demonstrate the applicant's capabilities to plan and implement a project or create educational materials or equipment to meet the objectives of this solicitation. MSHA's focus for these grants is on training mine operators and miners and developing training materials for mine emergency preparedness or mine emergency prevention for underground mines. An Agency strategic goal is to ensure workplaces are safe and healthy for workers through strengthening and modernizing training and education and improving mine emergency response preparedness through training. MSHA has two program outcome goals, described below, that will be considered indicators of the success of the program as a whole. The following table explains
The technical proposal narrative is not to exceed 12 single-sided, double-spaced pages, using 12-point font, and must contain the following sections: Program Design, Overall Qualifications of the Applicant, and Output and Evaluation. Any pages over the 12-page limit will not be reviewed. Attachments to the technical proposal are not counted toward the 12-page limit. Major sections and sub-sections of the proposal should be divided and clearly identified. And as required in Section VII subpart I “Transparency,” a grantee's final technical proposal will be posted as is on MSHA's Web site unless MSHA receives a version redacting any proprietary, confidential business, or personally identifiable information by October 21, 2013.
MSHA will review and rate the technical proposal in accordance with the selection criteria specified in Part V.
(a) Program Design
(1) Statement of the Problem/Need for Funds. Applicants must identify a clear and specific need for proposed activities. They must identify whether they are providing a training program or creating training materials or both. Applicants also must identify the number of individuals expected to benefit from their training and education program; this should include identifying the type of underground mines, the geographic locations, and the number of mine operators and miners. Applicants must also identify other Federal funds they receive for similar activities.
(2) Quality of the Project Design. MSHA requires that each applicant include a 12-month workplan that correlates with the grant project period that will begin September 30, 2013, and end September 29, 2014.
(i) Plan Overview. Describe the plan for grant activities and the anticipated results. The plan should describe such things as the development of training materials, the training content, recruiting of trainees, where or how training will take place, and the anticipated benefits to mine operators and miners receiving the training.
(ii) Activities. Break the plan down into activities or tasks. For each activity, explain what will be done, who will do it, when it will be done, and the anticipated results of the activity. For training, discuss the subjects to be taught, the length of the training sessions, type of training (e.g., Mine Emergency Response Development exercise), and training locations (e.g., classroom, worksites). Describe how the applicant will recruit mine operators and miners for the training. (Note: Any commercially developed training materials the applicant proposes to use in its training must undergo an MSHA review before being used.)
(iii) Quarterly Projections. For training and other quantifiable activities, estimate the quantities involved using the table located in Part IV.B.3 for data required to meet the grant goals. For example, estimate how many classes will be conducted and how many mine operators and miners will be trained each quarter of the grant (grant quarters match calendar quarters, i.e., January to March, April to June; but the first quarter is the date of award to December 31, 2013). Also, provide the training number totals for the full year. Quarterly projections are used to measure the actual performance against the plan. Applicants planning to conduct a train-the-trainer program should estimate the number of individuals to be trained during the grant period by those who received the train-the-trainer training. These second-tier training numbers should be included only if the organization is planning to follow up with the trainers to obtain this data during the grant period.
(iv) Materials. Describe each educational material, including any piece of equipment (e.g., mine simulator) to be produced under the grant. Provide a timetable for developing and producing the material. The timetable must include provisions for an MSHA review of draft and camera-ready products or evaluation of equipment. MSHA must review and approve training materials or equipment for technical accuracy and suitability of content before use in the grant program. Whether or not an applicant's project is to develop training materials only, the applicant should provide an overall plan that includes time for MSHA to review any materials produced.
(1) Applicant's Background. Describe the applicant, including its mission, and a description of its membership, if any. Provide an organizational chart (the chart may be included as a separate page which will not count toward the page limit). Identify the following:
(i) Project Director. The Project Director is the person who will be responsible for the day-to-day operation and administration of the program. Provide the name, title, street address and mailing address (if it is different from the organization's street address),
(ii) Certifying Representative. The Certifying Representative is the official in the organization who is authorized to enter into grant agreements. Provide the name, title, street address and mailing address (if it is different from the organization's street address), telephone and fax numbers, and email address of the Certifying Representative.
(2) Administrative and Program Capability. Briefly describe the organization's functions and activities, i.e., the applicant's management and internal controls. Relate this description of functions to the organizational chart. If the applicant has received any other government (Federal, State or local) grant funding, the application must have, as an attachment (which will not count towards the page limit), information regarding these previous grants. This information must include each organization for which the work was done and the dollar value of each grant. If the applicant does not have previous grant experience, it may partner with an organization that has grant experience to manage the grant. If the organization uses this approach, the management organization must be identified and its grant program experience discussed. Lack of past experience with Federal grants is not a determining factor, but an applicant should show a successful experience relevant to the opportunity offered in the application. Such experience could include staff members' experiences with other organizations.
(3) Program Experience. Describe the organization's experience conducting the proposed mine training program or other relevant experience. Include program specifics such as program title, numbers trained, and duration of training. If creating training materials, include the title of other materials developed. Nonprofit organizations, including community-based and faith-based organizations that do not have prior experience in mine safety may partner with an established mine safety organization to acquire safety expertise.
(4) Staff Experience. Describe the qualifications of the professional staff you will assign to the program. Attach resumes of staff already employed (resumes will not count towards the page limit). If some positions are vacant, include position descriptions and minimum hiring qualifications instead of resumes. Staff should have, at a minimum, mine safety experience, training experience, or experience working with the mining community.
(c) Outputs and Evaluations. There are two types of evaluations that must be conducted. First, describe the methods, approaches, or plans to evaluate the training sessions or training materials to meet the data requirements listed in the table above. Second, describe plans to assess the long-term effectiveness of the training materials or training conducted. The type of training given will determine whether the evaluation should include a process-related outcome or a result-related outcome or both. This will involve following up with an evaluation, or on-site review, if feasible, of miners trained. The evaluation should focus on what changes the trained miners made to abate hazards and improve workplace conditions, or to incorporate the training in the workplace, or both.
For training materials, include an evaluation from individuals trained on the clarity of the presentation, organization, and the quality of the information provided on the subject matter and whether they would continue to use the training materials. Include timetables for follow-up and for submitting a summary of the assessment results to MSHA.
The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is August 31, 2013 (no later than 11:59 p.m. EDST). Grant applications must be submitted electronically through the Grants.gov Web site. The Grants.gov site provides all the information about submitting an application electronically through the site as well as the hours of operation. Interested parties can locate the downloadable application package by the CFDA number 17.603.
Applications received by Grants.gov are electronically date and time stamped. An application must be fully uploaded and submitted (and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system) before the application deadline date. Once an interested party has submitted an application, Grants.gov will notify the interested party with an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. MSHA then will retrieve the application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to the interested party by email.
The Brookwood-Sago grants are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” MSHA, however, reminds applicants that if they are not operating MSHA-approved State training grants, they should contact the State grantees and coordinate any training or educational program. Information about each state grant and the entity operating the state grant is provided online at:
MSHA will determine whether costs are allowable under the applicable Federal cost principles and other conditions contained in the grant award.
Grant funds may be spent on conducting training, conducting outreach and recruiting activities to increase the number of mine operators and miners participating in the program, developing educational materials, and on necessary expenses to support these activities. Allowable costs are determined by the applicable Federal cost principles identified in Part VII.B.
Program income earned during the award period shall be retained by the recipient, added to funds committed to the award, and used for the purposes and under the conditions applicable to the use of the grant funds.
Grant funds may not be used for the following activities under this grant program:
(a) Any activity inconsistent with the goals and objectives of this SGA;
(b) Training on topics that are not targeted under this SGA;
(c) Purchasing any equipment unless pre-approved and in writing by the MSHA grant officer;
(d) Administrative costs that exceed 15% of the total grant budget; and
(e) Any pre-award costs.
Unallowable costs also include any cost determined by MSHA as not allowed according to the applicable cost principles or other conditions in the grant.
MSHA will screen all applications to determine whether all required proposal elements are present and clearly identifiable. Those that do not comply with mandatory requirements will not be evaluated. The technical panels will review grant applications using the following criteria:
1. Program Design—40 Points Total
(a) Statement of the Problem/Need for Funds. (3 points)
The proposed training and education program or training materials must address either mine emergency
(b) Quality of the Project Design. (25 points)
(1) The proposal to train mine operators and miners clearly estimates the number to be trained and clearly identifies the types of mine operators and miners to be trained.
(2) If the proposal contains a train-the-trainer program, the following information must be provided:
• What ongoing support the grantee will provide to new trainers;
• The number of individuals to be trained as trainers;
• The estimated number of courses to be conducted by the new trainers;
• The estimated number of students to be trained by these new trainers and a description of how the grantee will obtain data from the new trainers documenting their classes and student numbers if conducted during the grant period.
(3) The work plan activities and training are described.
• The planned activities and training are tailored to the needs and levels of the mine operators and miners to be trained. Any special constituency to be served through the grant program is described, e.g., smaller mines, limited English proficiency miners, etc. Organizations proposing to develop materials in languages other than English also will be required to provide an English version of the materials.
• If the proposal includes developing training materials, the work plan must include time during development for MSHA to review the educational materials for technical accuracy and suitability of content. If commercially developed training products will be used for a training program, applicants should also plan for MSHA to review the materials before using the products in their grant programs.
• The utility of the educational materials is described.
• The outreach or process to find mine operators, miners, or trainees to receive the training is described.
(c) Replication. (4 points)
The potential for a project to serve a variety of mine operators, miners, or mine sites, or the extent others may replicate the project.
(d) Innovativeness. (3 points)
The originality and uniqueness of the approach used.
(e) MSHA's Performance Goals. (5 points)
The extent the proposed project will contribute to MSHA's performance goals.
2. Budget—20 Points Total
(a) The budget presentation is clear and detailed. (15 points)
(1) The budgeted costs are reasonable.
(2) No more than 15% of the total budget is for administrative costs.
(3) The budget complies with Federal cost principles (which can be found in the applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars and with MSHA budget requirements contained in the grant application instructions).
(b) The application demonstrates that the applicant has strong financial management and internal control systems. (5 points)
3. Overall Qualifications of the Applicant—25 Points Total.
(a) Grant Experience. (6 points)
The applicant has administered, or will work with an organization that has administered, a number of different Federal or State grants. The applicant may demonstrate this experience by having project staff that has experience administering Federal or State grants.
(b) Mine Safety Training Experience. (13 points)
The applicant applying for the grant demonstrates experience with mine safety teaching or providing mine safety educational programs. Applicants that do not have prior experience in providing mine safety training to mine operators or miners may partner with an established mine safety organization to acquire mine safety expertise.
(1) Project staff has experience in mine safety, the specific topic chosen, or in training mine operators and miners.
(2) Project staff has experience in recruiting, training, and working with the population the organization proposes to serve.
(3) Applicant has experience in designing and developing mine safety training materials for a mining program.
(4) Applicant has experience in managing educational programs.
(c) Management. (6 points)
Applicant demonstrates internal control and management oversight of the project.
4. Outputs and Evaluations—15 Points Total.
The proposal should include provisions for evaluating the organization's progress in accomplishing the grant work activities and accomplishments, evaluating training sessions, and evaluating the program's effectiveness and impact to determine if the safety training and services provided resulted in workplace change or improved workplace conditions. The proposal should include a plan to follow up with trainees to determine the impact the program has had in abating hazards and reducing miner injuries and illnesses.
A technical panel will rate each complete application against the criteria described in this SGA. One or more applicants may be selected as grantees on the basis of the initial application submission or a minimally acceptable number of points may be established. MSHA may request final revisions to the applications, and then evaluate the revised applications. MSHA may consider any information that comes to its attention in evaluating the applications.
The panel recommendations are advisory in nature. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy for Mine Safety and Health will make a final selection determination based on what is most advantageous to the government, considering factors such as panel findings, geographic presence of the applicants or the areas to be served, Agency priorities, and the best value to the government, cost, and other factors. The Deputy Assistant Secretary's determination for award under this SGA is final.
Announcement of these awards is expected to occur by September 29, 2013. The grant agreement will be signed no later than September 30, 2013.
In this section, MSHA is providing the eligible FY 2012 renewal grantees the procedures and required documentation that they must submit to receive their FY 2013 funding. MSHA will notify all renewal grantees of their eligibility. The grantees are reminded that they are not required to apply for the second year of funding. If they do not wish to apply for the second-year funding, the grantees may apply for a new grant under the FY 2013 annual grant program instead.
Using its current grant number, each grantee must provide:
(a) Revised SF–424 and SF–424A forms; and
(b) If necessary, a revised workplan.
The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement
Announcement of these awards is expected to occur by September 29, 2013. The amendment to the FY 2012 grant agreement will be signed no later than September 30, 2013.
Before September 29, 2013, organizations selected as potential grant recipients will be notified by a representative of the Deputy Assistant Secretary, usually the Grant Officer or her staff. An applicant whose proposal is not selected will be notified in writing. The fact that an organization has been selected as a potential grant recipient does not necessarily constitute approval of the grant application as submitted (revisions may be required).
Before the actual grant award and the announcement of the award, MSHA may enter into negotiations with the potential grant recipient concerning such matters as program components, staffing and funding levels, and administrative systems. If the negotiations do not result in an acceptable submittal, the Deputy Assistant Secretary reserves the right to terminate the negotiations and decline to fund the proposal.
All grantees will be subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations (including provisions of appropriations law) and applicable OMB Circulars. The grants awarded under this competitive grant program will be subject to the following administrative standards and provisions, if applicable:
• 2 CFR Part 25, Universal Identifier and Central Contractor Registration.
• 2 CFR Part 170, Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation Information.
• 2 CFR Part 175, Award Term for Trafficking in Persons.
• 2 CFR Part 220, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions. (OMB Circular A–21).
• 2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A–87).
• 2 CFR Part 230, Cost Principles for Non-profit Organizations (OMB Circular A–122).
• 29 CFR Part 2, Subpart D, Equal Treatment in Department of Labor programs for Religious Organizations, Protection of Religious Liberty of Department of Labor Social Service Providers and Beneficiaries.
• 29 CFR Part 31, Nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs of the Department of Labor—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• 29 CFR Part 32, Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
• 29 CFR Part 33, Enforcement of non-discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by the Department of Labor.
• 29 CFR Part 35, Nondiscrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Labor.
• 29 CFR Part 36, Nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
• 29 CFR Part 93, New Restrictions on lobbying.
• 29 CFR Part 94, Governmentwide requirements for drug-free workplace (financial assistance).
• 29 CFR Part 95, Grants and agreements with institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations, and with commercial organizations, foreign governments, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, and international organizations.
• 29 CFR Part 96, Audit requirements for grants, contracts, and other agreements.
• 29 CFR Part 97, Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments.
• 29 CFR Part 98, Governmentwide debarment and suspension (nonprocurement).
• 29 CFR Part 99, Audits of states, local governments, and non-profit organizations.
• Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 31.2, Contracts cost principles and procedures (Codified at 48 CFR Part 31.2).
MSHA will review all grantee-produced educational and training materials for technical accuracy and suitability of content during development and before final publication. MSHA also will review training curricula and purchased training materials for technical accuracy and suitability of content before the materials are used. Grantees developing training materials must follow all copyright laws and provide written certification that their materials are free from copyright infringement.
When grantees produce training materials, they must provide copies of completed materials to MSHA before the end of the grant period. Completed materials should be submitted to MSHA in hard copy and in digital format (CD–ROM/DVD) for publication on the MSHA Web site. Two copies of the materials must be provided to MSHA. Acceptable formats for training materials include Microsoft XP Word, PDF, PowerPoint, and any other format agreed upon by MSHA.
As listed in 29 CFR 95.36, the Department of Labor reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use for Federal purposes any work produced under a grant, and to authorize others to do so. Grantees must agree to provide the Department of Labor a paid-up, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use for Federal purposes all products developed, or for which ownership was purchased, under an award. Such products include, but are not limited to, curricula, training models, technical assistance products, and any related materials. Such uses include, but are not limited to, the right to modify and distribute such products worldwide by any means, electronic, or otherwise. Title 29 CFR 97.34 provides DOL and MSHA with similar rights for any work produced or purchased under the grant.
All approved grant-funded materials developed by a grantee shall contain the following disclaimer: “This material was produced under grant number XXXXX from the Mine Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. It does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Labor, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or
When issuing statements, press releases, request for proposals, bid solicitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds must clearly state:
(a) The percentage of the total costs of the program or project that will be financed with Federal money;
(b) The dollar amount of Federal financial assistance for the project or program; and
(c) The percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the project or program that will be financed by non-governmental sources.
The USDOL or the MSHA logo may be applied to the grant-funded material including posters, videos, pamphlets, research documents, national survey results, impact evaluations, best practice reports, and other publications. The grantees must consult with MSHA on whether the logo may be used on any such items prior to final draft or final preparation for distribution. In no event shall the USDOL or the MSHA logo be placed on any item until MSHA has given the grantee written permission to use either logo on the item.
Grantees are required by Departmental regulations to submit financial and project reports, as described below, each quarter (grant quarters match calendar quarters, i.e., January to March, April to June).
(a) Financial Reports
All financial reports are due no later than 30 days after the end of the quarter and shall be submitted to MSHA electronically. Grantees will be contacted with instructions on how to submit reports.
(b) Technical Project Reports
After signing the agreement, the grantee shall submit technical project reports to MSHA no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter. Technical project reports provide both quantitative and qualitative information and a narrative assessment of performance for the preceding three-month period. See 29 CFR 95.51 and 29 CFR 97.40. This should include the current grant progress against the overall grant goals as provided in Part IV.B.3.
Between reporting dates, the grantee shall immediately inform MSHA of significant developments or problems affecting the organization's ability to accomplish the work. See 29 CFR 95.51(f) and 29 CFR 97.40(d).
(c) Final Reports
At the end of each 12-month performance period, each grantee must provide a final financial report, a summary of its technical project reports, and an evaluation report. These final reports are due no later than 90 days after the end of the 12-month performance period.
Any information submitted in response to this SGA will be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, as appropriate.
DOL is committed to conducting a transparent grant award process and publicizing information about program outcomes. Posting awardees' grant applications on public Web sites is a means of promoting and sharing innovative ideas. Under this SGA, DOL will publish the awardees' Executive Summaries, selected information from their SF–424s, and a version of awardees' Technical Proposals on the Department's Web site or similar location. None of the Attachments to the Technical Proposal provided with the applications will be published. The Technical Proposals and Executive Summaries will not be published until after the grants are awarded. In addition, information about grant progress and results may also be made publicly available.
DOL recognizes that grant applications sometimes contain information that an applicant may consider proprietary or business confidential information, or may contain personally identifiable information. Proprietary or business confidential information is information that is not usually disclosed outside your organization and disclosing this information is likely to cause you substantial competitive harm.
Personally identifiable information is any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, such as name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother`s maiden name, or biometric records; and any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial, and employment information.
Executive Summaries will be published in the form originally submitted, without any redactions. Applicants should not include any proprietary or confidential business information or personally identifiable information in this summary. In the event that an applicant submits proprietary or confidential business information or personally identifiable information in the summary, DOL is not liable for the posting of this information contained in the Executive Summary. The submission of the grant application constitutes a waiver of the applicant's objection to the posting of any proprietary or confidential business information contained in the Executive Summary. Additionally, the applicant is responsible for obtaining all authorizations from relevant parties for publishing all personally identifiable information contained within the Executive Summary. In the event the Executive Summary contains proprietary or confidential business or personally identifiable information, the applicant is presumed to have obtained all necessary authorizations to provide this information and may be liable for any improper release of this information.
By submission of this grant application, the applicant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the United States, the U.S. Department of Labor, its officers, employees, and agents against any liability or for any loss or damages arising from this application. By such submission of this grant application, the applicant further acknowledges having the authority to execute this release of liability.
In order to ensure that proprietary or confidential business information or personally identifiable information is properly protected from disclosure when DOL posts the selected Technical Proposals, applicants whose Technical Proposals will be posted will be asked to submit a second redacted version of their Technical Proposal, with any proprietary or confidential business information and personally identifiable information redacted. All non-public information about the applicant's staff or other individuals should be removed as well.
The Department will contact the applicants whose Technical Proposals will be published by letter or email, and provide further directions about how and when to submit the redacted version of the Technical Proposal.
Submission of a redacted version of the Technical Proposal will constitute permission by the applicant for DOL to make the redacted version publicly available. We will also assume that the applicant has obtained the agreement to the redacted version of the applicant's
Applicants are encouraged to disclose as much of the grant application information as possible, and to redact only information that clearly is proprietary, confidential commercial/business information, or capable of identifying a person. The redaction of entire pages or sections of the Technical Proposal is not appropriate, and will not be allowed, unless the entire portion merits such protection. Should a dispute arise about whether redactions are appropriate, DOL will follow the procedures outlined in the Department's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations (29 CFR Part 70).
Redacted information in grant applications will be protected by DOL from public disclosure in accordance with federal law, including the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), FOIA, and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). If DOL receives a FOIA request for your application, the procedures in DOL's FOIA regulations for responding to requests for commercial/business information submitted to the government will be followed, as well as all FOIA exemptions and procedures. 29 CFR 70.26. Consequently, it is possible that application of FOIA rules may result in release of information in response to a FOIA request that an applicant redacted in its “redacted copy.”
Any questions regarding this solicitation for grant applications (SGA 13–3BS) should be directed to Robert Glatter at
This SGA requests information from applicants. This collection of information is approved under OMB Control No. 1225–0086 (expires January 31, 2016).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for the grant application is estimated to average 20 hours per response, for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Each recipient who receives a grant award notice will be required to submit nine progress reports to MSHA. MSHA estimates that each report will take approximately two and one-half hours to prepare.
Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the OMB Desk Officer for MSHA, Office of Management and Budget Room 10235, Washington DC 20503 and MSHA, electronically to Robert Glatter at
This information is being collected for the purpose of awarding a grant. The information collected through this “Solicitation for Grant Applications” will be used by the Department of Labor to ensure that grants are awarded to the applicant best suited to perform the functions of the grant. Submission of this information is required in order for the applicant to be considered for award of this grant. Unless otherwise specifically noted in this announcement, information submitted in the respondent's application is not considered to be confidential.
30 U.S.C. 965.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Occupational Exposure to Noise Standard (29 CFR 1910.95). The information collection requirements specified in the Noise Standard protect workers from suffering material hearing impairment.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by September 30, 2013.
Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA–95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
The information collection requirements specified in the Noise Standard protect workers from suffering material hearing impairment. The Standard requires employers to: Monitor worker exposure to noise when it is likely that such exposures may equal or exceed 85 decibels measured on the A scale (dBA) for an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) (action level); take action to reduce noise exposures to the 90 dBA permissible exposure limit (PEL); and provide an effective hearing conservation program (HCP) for all workers exposed to noise at a level greater than, or equal to, a TWA of 85 dBA.
The HCP contains information on: Conducting noise monitoring; notifying workers when they are exposed at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels; providing workers with initial and annual audiograms; notifying workers of a loss in hearing based on comparing audiograms; training workers on the effects of noise, hearing protectors, and audiometric examinations; maintaining records of workplace noise exposure and workers' audiograms; and allowing OSHA, workers, and their designated representatives access to materials and records required by the Standard.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting an adjustment decrease of burden hours associated with the paperwork requirements in the Standard from 2,604,597 hours to 2,068,736 hours (a total decrease of 535,861 hours). The Agency is also requesting an adjustment decrease in the cost under Item 13 from $82,190,075 to $26,296,876; a total decrease of $55,893,199. The Agency determined that it had counted the cost of worker travel and the cost of worker time under Item 12 in previous ICRs. Thus, it found that it had been double counting hours under certain instances.
OSHA has reduced the number of establishments and workers by 19.6%. The 19.6% reduction reflects that virtually all sectors affected by the Noise Standard are in manufacturing; and, that the number of workers in manufacturing has decreased from 13.3 million in 2009 to 10.7 million today.
Additionally, the Agency has determined that training is not subject to PRA–95 and has removed the burden hours and cost associated with it.
The Agency is requesting a decrease in the burden hours from 2,604,597 to 2,068,736 hours for a total decrease of 535,861 hours. The reduction is a result of a 19.6% reduction in the number of workers and manufacturing establishments. Also, the Agency now assumes that 50% of small establishment workers will receive audiometric exams via mobile testing vans. The previous ICR assumed that all small establishment workers would go off-site to receive their audiometric examination.
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Occupational Exposure to Noise Standard (29 CFR 1910.95).
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–2350, (TTY (877) 889–5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
July 22, 2013 (78 FR 43941).
10:00 a.m., Thursday, July 25, 2013.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314–3428.
Open.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in Sunshine Act” notice is hereby given that the NCUA Board gave notice on July 22, 2013 (78 FR 43941) of the regular meeting of the NCUA Board scheduled for July 25, 2013. Prior to the meeting, on July 25, 2013, the NCUA Board unanimously determined that agency business required the deletion of the second item on the agenda with less than seven days' notice to the public, and that no earlier notice of the deletion was possible.
2. Board Briefing—Interagency Proposal, Joint Diversity Standards for Regulated Entities.
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703–518–6564
The National Science Board's Subcommittee on Facilities of the Committee on Strategy and Budget, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business and other matters specified, as follows:
Monday, August 5, 2013, from 2:00–3:00 p.m. EDT.
(1) Chairman's opening remarks; (2) organize and plan activities for the August Board meeting; (3) review background materials for the Annual Portfolio Review (APR); and (4) receive an update on the APR .
Open.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. A public listening line will be available. Members of the public must contact the Board Office [call 703–292–7000 or send an email message to
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft NUREG; withdrawal and resolution of public comments.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing draft NUREG–2154, “Acceptability of Corrective Action Programs for Fuel Cycle Facilities,” based on receipt and review of public comments. The draft NUREG provided guidance to NRC staff on how to determine whether a submittal for a Corrective Action Program (CAP), voluntarily submitted by fuel cycle facility licensees, was acceptable. The NRC staff has reviewed public comments received on draft NUREG–2154 and has decided to withdraw the draft NUREG and to proceed with the development and issuance of a draft Regulatory Guide (RG) to describe elements of an acceptable CAP for fuel cycle facilities.
Draft NUREG–2154 is withdrawn on July 30, 2013.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0033 when contacting the NRC about the availability of
•
•
•
Sabrina Atack, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–287–9075; email
In response to the Commission's direction in the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY–10–0031 (ADAMS Accession No. ML102170054), the NRC staff revised Section 2.3.2. of the NRC Enforcement Policy to disposition Severity Level IV violations for fuel cycle facilities as non-cited violations if the NRC determines that the licensee's CAP is effective, the licensee enters the violation in its CAP, and other criteria are met, as delineated in Section 2.3.2 of the NRC Enforcement Policy. As part of its response to the SRM, the NRC staff also developed draft NUREG–2154, “Acceptability of Corrective Action Programs for Fuel Cycle Facilities” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13036A029). The intent of the draft NUREG was to provide guidance to NRC staff on how to determine, based on a licensee's CAP licensing submittal, that a CAP is acceptable. The NRC staff issued draft NUREG–2154 for public comment on February 20, 2013 (78 FR 11903).
By letter dated April 22, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13133A219), the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) provided comments on draft NUREG–2154. In the letter and its attachment, NEI suggested that the NRC consider converting the draft NUREG to a RG since RGs are typically the primary source of information for licensees and applicants filing for a license or requesting a licensing action. Further, during an April 11, 2013, public meeting held in Atlanta, GA (ADAMS Accession No. ML13113A251), members of industry identified that the burden of implementing a CAP could be eased if applicants and licensees were able to commit to a set of CAP requirements rather than undertake the process of submitting a written CAP for NRC review and approval. The comment resolution table that describes the NRC staff's resolution of the comments and recommendations related to draft NUREG–2154 is available for public review in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13158A143.
Based on the review of public comment submissions and feedback at public meetings, the NRC has decided to withdraw draft NUREG–2154 and to identify the elements of an acceptable fuel cycle facility CAP in a draft RG. The NRC staff has determined that a RG can effectively describe measures for establishing a CAP that is adequate to support the application of the provisions of Section 2.3.2 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (ADAMS Accession No. ML12340A295) by fuel cycle facilities. This approach will minimize the burden to licensees who wish to implement a CAP by streamlining the licensing actions associated with incorporating CAP commitments into the license. Licensees will be able to submit a simple license amendment request committing to comply with the RG and implementing documents established thereto rather than submitting a detailed CAP description for NRC review and approval. The draft RG, DG–3044, “Corrective Action Programs for Fuel Cycle Facilities,” will be issued for public comment in a forthcoming
By this action, the NRC is withdrawing draft NUREG–2154. The guidance contained in the draft NUREG will be reissued in the form of a draft regulatory guide (DG–3044, “Corrective Action Programs for Fuel Cycle Facilities”).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a final rule amending certain emergency planning (EP) requirements in the regulations that govern domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities (November 23, 2011; 76 FR 72560) (EP Final Rule). The EP Final Rule was effective on December 23, 2011, with various implementation dates for each of the rule changes.
John Goshen, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–287–9250, email:
The Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) is the holder of Possession-Only License DPR–3 for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS) facility. The license, issued pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and part 50 of Title 10 of the
After ceasing operations at the reactor, the YAEC began transferring spent nuclear fuel from the spent fuel pool to the YNPS Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) for long term dry storage. The YNPS ISFSI is a vertical dry cask storage facility for spent nuclear fuel.
On June 19, 2012, the YAEC submitted a letter, “Request for Exemption to Revised Emergency Planning Regulations” (ADAMS Accession No. ML121810053), requesting exemption from specific EP requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 for the YNPS ISFSI.
The YAEC states that this exemption request and its impact on the corresponding emergency plan: (1) Is authorized by law, (2) will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety; and (3) is consistent with the common defense and security in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12. The YAEC states that its intent in submitting this exemption request is to maintain the regulatory structure in place prior to the issuance of the EP Final Rule and, therefore, does not propose any changes to the Emergency Plan or implementing procedures other than simple regulatory reference changes that can be implemented under 10 CFR 50.54(q).
On July 2, 1992, (ADAMS Legacy Accession No. 9207070401), the YAEC requested an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(q) that required emergency plans to meet all of the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and all of the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 so that the licensee would have to meet only certain EP standards and requirements. Additionally, the YAEC requested approval of a proposed YNPS Defueled Emergency Plan (DEP) that proposed to meet those limited standards and requirements.
The NRC approved the requested exemption and the DEP on October 30, 1992, (ADAMS Legacy Accession No. 9211050354). The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) established EP requirements for the YAEC as documented in the DEP. The NRC staff concluded that the licensee's emergency plan was acceptable in view of the greatly reduced offsite radiological consequences associated with the defueled condition of the reactor with spent nuclear fuel in storage in the spent fuel pool. The staff found that the postulated dose to the general public from any reasonably conceivable accident would not exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Action Guides (PAGs), and for the bounding accident, the length of time available to respond to a loss of spent fuel cooling or reduction in water level gave confidence that offsite measures for the public could be taken without preparation.
The YAEC revised the DEP to incorporate plans for responding to emergencies that may arise during transfer of spent nuclear fuel and greater than Class C (GTCC) waste into dry storage at the YNPS ISFSI and submitted these revisions to the NRC through Revision 10 to the YAEC DEP on April 10, 2002, (ADAMS Accession No. ML021070683
On March 8, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML050740396
Revision 17 of the YNPS Emergency Plan, dated October 31, 2012, (ADAMS Accession No. ML12321A053
With the EP Final Rule, several requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 were modified or added, including changes in sections 50.47, and 50.54, and Appendix E. Specific implementation dates were provided for each EP rule change. The EP Final Rule codified certain voluntary protective measures contained in NRC Bulletin 2005–02, “Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security-Based Events,” and generically applicable requirements similar to those previously imposed by NRC Order EA–02–026, “Order for Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures,” dated February 25, 2002.
In addition, the EP Final Rule amended other licensee emergency plan requirements to: (1) Enhance the ability of licensees in preparing for and in taking certain protective actions in the event of a radiological emergency; (2) address, in part, security issues identified after the terrorist events of September 11, 2001; (3) clarify regulations to effect consistent emergency plan implementation among licensees; and (4) modify certain EP requirements to be more effective and efficient. However, the EP Final Rule was only an enhancement to the NRC's regulations and was not necessary for adequate protection. On page 76 FR 72563 of the
In the Final Rule for Storage of Spent Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Power Reactor Sites (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990), the NRC amended its regulations to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license on the site of any nuclear power reactor. In its Statement of Considerations (SOC) for the Final Rule (55 FR 29185), the Commission responded to comments related to emergency preparedness for spent fuel dry storage, stating, “The new 10 CFR 72.32(c) . . . states that, `For an ISFSI that is located on the site of a nuclear power reactor licensed for operation by the Commission, the emergency plan required by 10 CFR 50.47 shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this Section.' One condition of the general license is that the reactor licensee must review the reactor emergency plan and modify it as necessary to cover dry cask storage and related activities. If the emergency plan
In the SOC for the Final Rule for EP requirements for ISFSIs and Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation (MRS) (60 FR 32430; June 22, 1995), the Commission stated, in part, that “current reactor emergency plans cover all at-or near reactor ISFSI's. An ISFSI that is to be licensed for a stand-alone operation will need an emergency plan established in accordance with the requirements in this rulemaking” (60 FR 32431). The Commission responded to comments (60 FR 32435) concerning offsite emergency planning for ISFSIs or an MRS and concluded that “the offsite consequences of potential accidents at an ISFSI or a MRS would not warrant establishing Emergency Planning Zones.”
As part of the review for YAEC's current exemption request, the staff also used the EP regulations in 10 CFR 72.32 and Spent Fuel Project Office Interim Staff Guidance (ISG)—16, “Emergency Planning,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML003724570) as references to ensure consistency between specific-licensed and general-licensed ISFSIs.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when: (1) The exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. The staff reviewed this request to determine whether the specific exemptions should be granted, and the staff evaluation (SE) is provided in its letter to YAEC, dated May 7, 2013, (ADAMS Accession No. ML13121A560). After evaluating the exemption requests, the staff determined that the YAEC should be granted the exemptions detailed in the SE.
The NRC has found that the YAEC meets the criteria for an exemption in 10 CFR 50.12. The NRC has determined that granting the exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
As noted in Section 2.0, “Discussion,” above, the YAEC's compliance with the EP requirements that were in effect before the effective date of the EP Final Rule demonstrated reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and common defense and security. In its SE., the NRC staff explains that the YAEC's implementation of its Emergency Plan, with the exemptions, will continue to provide this reasonable assurance of adequate protection. Thus, granting the exemptions will not present an undue risk to public health or safety and is not inconsistent with the common defense and security.
For the Commission to grant an exemption, special circumstances must exist. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present when “[a]pplication of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.” These special circumstances exist here. The NRC has determined that the YAEC's compliance with the regulations that the staff describes in its SE is not necessary for the licensee to demonstrate that, under its emergency plan, there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Consequently, special circumstances are present because requiring the YAEC to comply with the regulations that the staff describes in its SE is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the EP regulations.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the EA, the NRC finds that the proposed
The NRC concludes that the licensee's request for an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV as specified in this SE are acceptable in view of the greatly reduced offsite radiological consequences associated with the ISFSI.
The YNPS Emergency Plan has been reviewed against the acceptance criteria included in 10 CFR 50.47, Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 72.32 and Interim Staff Guidance—16. The review considered the ISFSI and the low likelihood of any credible accident resulting in radiological releases requiring offsite protective measures. These evaluations were supported by the previously documented licensee and staff accident analyses. The staff concludes that: The YNPS Emergency Plan provides: (1) An adequate basis for an acceptable state of emergency preparedness; and (2) the Emergency Plan, in conjunction with arrangements made with offsite response agencies, provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the YNPS facility.
The NRC has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemptions described in the SE are authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest, and special circumstances are present.
Documents related to this action, including the application for renewal and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment: issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 10 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF–91 and NPF–92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia. The amendment requests to modify the Primary Sampling System (PSS) design, including changes to Tier 1 information located in Tables 2.2.1–2, 2.3.13–1, and 2.3.13–3, Figures 2.2.1–1 “Containment System” and 2.3.13–1 “Primary Sampling System,” and Subsection 2.3.13, “Primary Sampling System” of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2008–0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Anthony Minarik, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–6185; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from Paragraph B of Section III, “Scope and Contents,” of Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of Title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4. of Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13150A088.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for Vogtle Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92). These documents can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13150A064 and ML13150A066. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13150A070 and ML13150A077. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to Vogtle Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated December 7, 2012, and as supplemented by letters dated January 25, 2013, and March 29, 2013, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, Section III.B, as part of license amendment request 12–012R, “Changes to the Primary Sampling System” (LAR 12–012R).
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13150A088, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption to the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, Section III.B, to allow deviations from the certified Design Control Document Tier 1 Section 2.3.13, Tables 2.2.1–2, 2.3.13–1, and 2.3.13–3, and Figures 2.2.1–1 and 2.3.13–1, as described in the licensee's request dated December 7, 2012, and as supplemented on January 25, 2013, and March 29, 2013. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 10, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML13150A088), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of June 19, 2013.
By letter dated December 7, 2012, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92. The licensee supplemented this application on January 25, 2013, and March 29, 2013. The proposed amendment would depart from Tier 2 Material previously incorporated into the UFSAR. Additionally, these Tier 2 changes involve changes to Tier 1 Information in the UFSAR, and the proposed amendment would also revise the associated material that has been included in Appendix C of each of the VEGP, Units 3 and 4 COLs. The requested amendment will revise the Tier 2 UFSAR information pertaining to the PSS air return valve, and various Tier 2 tables and sections regarding the PSS design. These Tier 2 changes require modifications to particular Tier 1 information located in Tables 2.2.1–2, 2.3.13–1, and 2.3.13–3, Figures 2.2.1–1 “Containment System” and 2.3.13–1 “Primary Sampling System,” and Subsection 2.3.13, “Primary Sampling System” of the UFSAR, as well as the corresponding information in Appendix C. These changes were necessary as part of a design modification which changes the type of valve used as the air return check valve from a check valve to a SOV; redesigns the PSS inside-containment header; and adds a PSS containment penetration.
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment: Issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 10 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF–91 and NPF–92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia. The amendment requests to modify the Primary Sampling System (PSS) design, including changes to Tier 1 information located in Tables 2.2.1–2, 2.3.13–1, and 2.3.13–3, Figures 2.2.1–1 “Containment System” and 2.3.13–1 “Primary Sampling System,” and Subsection 2.3.13, “Primary Sampling System” of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2008–0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Anthony Minarik, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–6185; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from Paragraph B of Section III, “Scope and Contents,” of Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of Title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4. of Appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13150A088.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for Vogtle Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92). These documents can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13150A064 and ML13150A066. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13150A070 and ML13150A077. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to Vogtle Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated December 7, 2012, and as supplemented by letters dated January 25, 2013, and March 29, 2013,
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13150A088, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption to the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, Section III.B, to allow deviations from the certified Design Control Document Tier 1 Section 2.3.13, Tables 2.2.1–2, 2.3.13–1, and 2.3.13–3, and Figures 2.2.1–1 and 2.3.13–1, as described in the licensee's request dated December 7, 2012, and as supplemented on January 25, 2013, and March 29, 2013. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 10, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML13150A088), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of June 19, 2013.
By letter dated December 7, 2012, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92. The licensee supplemented this application on January 25, 2013, and March 29, 2013. The proposed amendment would depart from Tier 2 Material previously incorporated into the UFSAR. Additionally, these Tier 2 changes involve changes to Tier 1 Information in the UFSAR, and the proposed amendment would also revise the associated material that has been included in Appendix C of each of the VEGP, Units 3 and 4 COLs. The requested amendment will revise the Tier 2 UFSAR information pertaining to the PSS air return valve, and various Tier 2 tables and sections regarding the PSS design. These Tier 2 changes require modifications to particular Tier 1 information located in Tables 2.2.1–2, 2.3.13–1, and 2.3.13–3, Figures 2.2.1–1 “Containment System” and 2.3.13–1 “Primary Sampling System,” and Subsection 2.3.13, “Primary Sampling System” of the UFSAR, as well as the corresponding information in Appendix C. These changes were necessary as part of a design modification which changes the type of valve used as the air return check valve from a check valve to a SOV; redesigns the PSS inside-containment header; and adds a PSS containment penetration.
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on December 7, 2012, and supplemented by letters dated January 25, 2013, and March 29, 2013. The exemption and amendment were issued on June 19, 2013 as part of a combined package to the licensee. (ADAMS Accession No. ML13150A052).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment: Issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting both an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 8 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF–91 and NPF–92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia. The amendment requests to revise the design of the bracing used to support the Turbine Building structure. This request requires changing Tier 1 information found in the Design Description portion of Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 3.3, “Buildings.” The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2008–0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Anthony Minarik, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–6185; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from Paragraph B of Section III, “Scope and Contents,” of Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of Title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4. of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13121A421.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for Vogtle Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92). These documents can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13121A376 and ML13121A385. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13121A392 and ML13121A397. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to Vogtle Unit 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated February 8, 2013, and as supplemented by letter dated February 15, 2013, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section III.B, as part of license amendment request 13–005 “Turbine Building Eccentric and Concentric Bracing” (LAR 13–005).
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13121A421, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption to the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, Section III.B, to allow deviations from the certified Design Control Document Tier 1 Section 3.3, as described in the licensee's request dated February 8, 2013, and supplemented on February 15, 2013. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 8, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML13121A421), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of May 21, 2013.
By letter dated February 8, 2013, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92. The licensee supplemented this application on February 15, 2013. The licensee sought to change Tier 2 information previously incorporated into the UFSAR. Additionally, these Tier 2 changes involved changes to Tier 1 material in the UFSAR, and would revise the associated material that has been
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on February 8, 2013, and supplemented by letter dated February 15, 2013. The exemption and amendment were issued on May 21, 2013 as part of a combined package to the licensee. (ADAMS Accession No. ML13121A359).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC–2013–0001]
Weeks of July 29, August 5, 12, 19, 26, September 2, 2013.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 29, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 5, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 12, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 19, 2013.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 2, 2013.
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—301–415–1292. Contact person for more information: Rochelle Bavol, 301–415–1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301–287–0727, or by email at
This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), or send an email to
Notice of public meeting.
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), on behalf of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), will hold a workshop on September 10–11, 2013, to engage stakeholders in discussion of perspectives on the perception, assessment, and management of the potential risks of nanotechnology. Representatives of the U.S. research community, industry, non-governmental organizations, and interested members
September 10, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. and September 11, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.
The workshop will be held at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conference & Training Center, Patriots Plaza III, 355 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Type of Meeting: Public.
Registration: Due to space limitations, pre-registration for the workshop is required. Registration is on a first-come, first-served basis until capacity is reached. Registration will open on August 2, 2013, and remain open until September 3, 2013, or until capacity is reached. Individuals planning to attend the workshop should register online at
Those interested in presenting 3–5 minutes of public comments at the meeting must be registered
For information regarding this Notice, please contact Tarek Fadel at National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, by telephone (703–292–7926) or email:
Updates to this Notice and additional information about the meeting, including the agenda, is posted at
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, August 1, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be: Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; consideration of amicus participation; and other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ is proposing to offer a new Dedicated OUCH Port Infrastructure connectivity option and adopt related fees under Rule 7015(g). The Exchange will implement the new service in October 2013, and will provide public notice thereof at least five days prior to the implementation date. NASDAQ will accept subscriptions to the service immediately; however, it will not assess the monthly subscription fee until the service is offered in October 2013. NASDAQ will begin assessing the installation fee immediately, but waive the fee for all subscriptions received by August 15, 2013.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
The following charges are assessed by Nasdaq for connectivity to systems operated by NASDAQ, including the Nasdaq Market Center, the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility, and FINRA's OTCBB Service. The following fees are not applicable to the NASDAQ
(a)–(f) No change.
(g) Other Port Fees
The following port fees shall apply in connection with the use of other trading telecommunication protocols:
• $500 per month for each port pair, other than Multicast ITCH® data feed pairs, for which the fee is $1000 per month for software-based TotalView-ITCH or $2,500 per month for combined software- and hardware-based TotalView-ITCH.
• An additional $200 per month for each port used for entering orders or quotes over the Internet.
• An additional $600 per month for each port used for market data delivery over the Internet.
(h) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NASDAQ is proposing to offer a new connectivity option, and adopt related installation and subscription fees, which will provide member firms with remote access to dedicated server hardware for OUCH port connectivity
NASDAQ is proposing to offer the service for a one-time installation fee of $5,000 per subscription and a monthly subscription fee of $5,000. The monthly subscription fee is in addition to the standard per port fee assessed a member firm for the OUCH ports assigned to the Dedicated OUCH subscription
NASDAQ notes that member firms will not have physical access to their dedicated server within the NASDAQ data center and thus cannot make any modifications to the server. All port servers (including servers used for this service) are owned and operated by NASDAQ. NASDAQ will assign the same type of server to Dedicated OUCH subscribers as is provided to existing OUCH port users on shared servers.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act
The Exchange determined that the proposed fees are reasonable based on market demand as well as the costs associated with purchasing hardware (capital expenditures) and supporting and maintaining the infrastructure (operating expenditures) for this Dedicated OUCH connectivity option for member firms. To the extent such costs are covered, the proposed fees may provide NASDAQ with a profit. Member firms are not obligated to subscribe to this service and may continue to access the NASDAQ System through shared servers at no additional cost. As such, the Exchange believes that if a member firm determines that the installation and subscription fees are not cost-efficient for its needs or does [sic] not provide sufficient value to the firm, it may elect not to subscribe to the service and continue to access the System, unchanged. NASDAQ notes that member firms may subscribe to OUCH ports at any time, in addition to or in replacement of, existing means of accessing NASDAQ. NASDAQ also believes that waiver of the installation fee is reasonable as it promotes member firms' subscription to the connectivity option, thus providing NASDAQ with a successful launch of the new service option while also promoting a wider use of the connectivity among member firms that might not be initially realized without the waiver.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because member firms that voluntarily elect to subscribe to this service will be charged the same fees. Furthermore, this service is optional and is available to all NASDAQ member firms. With Dedicated OUCH, member firms can develop a tailored trading solution by controlling their message traffic in order to optimize their trading strategies. In this regard, some member firms may find little benefit in having [sic] dedicated server, and may continue their use of the shared servers, unchanged. The Exchange has no plans to eliminate shared servers and require subscription to the dedicated infrastructure. NASDAQ also believes that the waiver of the installation fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is offered to all member firms and it is applied equally to all member firms that subscribe by a date certain.
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. NASDAQ notes that the connectivity option is wholly optional and therefore member firms are not compelled to subscribe. Moreover, NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is pro-competitive as it adds an additional connectivity option available to NASDAQ members.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange proposes to offer a waiver of the installation fee for those who subscribe to this new connectivity option by August 15, 2013. NASDAQ's waiver of the installation fee will benefit those who purchase this new connectivity option by August 15, 2013, and will allow NASDAQ to begin without delay the process of purchasing hardware and installation so that subscribers may use the service beginning with its commencement in October 2013. The proposed rule change presents no novel issues, and waiver of the operative delay provides benefits to NASDAQ and member firms subscribing to the service. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Duoyuan Printing, Inc., because Duoyuan Printing, Inc. has not filed any periodic reports for any reporting period subsequent to March 31, 2010.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of the investors require a suspension of trading in securities of Duoyuan Printing, Inc.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in Duoyuan Printing, Inc. is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, July 26, 2013, through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on August 8, 2013.
By the Commission.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of open Federal Interagency Task Force meeting.
The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time, and agenda for its public meeting of the Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development. The meeting will be open to the public.
August 28, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon in the newly designed Eisenhower Conference Room, located on the concourse level.
SBA Headquarters, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development. The Task Force is established pursuant to Executive Order 13540 and focused on coordinating the efforts of Federal agencies to improve capital, business development opportunities and pre-established Federal contracting goals for small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans (VOB's) and service-disabled veterans (SDVOSB'S). Moreover, the Task Force shall coordinate administrative and regulatory activities and develop proposals relating to “six focus areas”: (1) Access to capital (loans, surety bonding and franchising); (2) Ensure achievement of pre-established contracting goals, including mentor protégé and matching with contracting opportunities; (3) Increase the integrity of certifications of status as a small business; (4) Reducing paperwork and administrative burdens in accessing business development and entrepreneurship opportunities; (5) Increasing and improving training and counseling services; and (6) Making other improvements to support veteran's business development by the Federal government.
On November 1, 2011, the Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development submitted its first report to the President, which included 18 recommendations that were applicable to the “six focus areas” identified above.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss progress on the recommendations and next steps identified by the Interagency Task Force (IATF) in the Fiscal Year (FY) 12 Annual Report. The agenda will include updates from each of the members, public comment, and planning for the FY13 IATF Annual Report.
In addition, the Task Force will allow time to obtain public comment from individuals and representatives of organizations regarding the areas of focus.
The meeting is open to the public; however, advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to attend and/or make a presentation to the Task Force must contact Barbara Carson, by August 16, 2013, by email in order to be placed on the agenda. Comments for the Record should be applicable to the “six focus areas” of the Task Force and emailed prior to the meeting for inclusion in the public record, verbal presentations; however, will be limited to five minutes in the interest of time and to accommodate as many presenters as possible.
Written comments should be emailed to Barbara Carson, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Veterans Business Development, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, at the email address for the Task Force,
ITS Joint Program Office, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Intelligent Transportation System Joint Program Office (ITS JPO), in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration
The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 12, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the USDOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, across the street from the Navy Yard Metro Station.
Advanced registration is required. Please RSVP no later than Wednesday, September 4, 2013 with your name and a business email address to Elizabeth Machek of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration at
For more information about Connected Vehicles, visit
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and Other Federal Agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to the State Route 167 Puyallup to SR 509, Puyallup River Bridge Replacement Project, located in the City of Puyallup (Milepost [MP] 6.40) in Pierce County, Washington. The action by FHWA is the Record of Decision (ROD), which selects a new bridge and roadway alignment for southbound traffic, which will accommodate the future SR 167 Extension interchange and removes the existing steel truss as a last order of work. Actions by other Federal agencies include issuing permits.
By this notice, FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the listed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before December 27, 2013. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Dean Moberg, Area Engineer, Olympic Region, Federal Highway Administration, 711 South Capital Way, Suite 501, Olympia, WA 98501–0943, telephone: (360) 534–9344, email address:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions related to the State Route 167 Puyallup to SR 509, Puyallup River Bridge Replacement Project in the State of Washington. The FHWA, in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (FHWA–WA–EIS–2002–02–D) and Final EIS (FHWA–WA–EIS–2002–02–F) for the proposed completion of the SR 167 freeway between SR 161 (Meridian Street North) in north Puyallup and the SR 509 freeway in the City of Tacoma. The preferred alternative entailed removing the Meridian Street Bridge and constructing a new five-lane northbound bridge in its place. The FHWA issued a ROD for the project in October 2007 and funding for engineering and to begin purchasing right of way was approved. The FHWA and WSDOT prepared a Draft Supplemental EIS (FHWA–WA–EIS–2002–02–DS) to evaluate the design modification, which includes construction of a new two-lane bridge that will be built to the west of the existing concrete bridge, instead of at the current location of the Meridian Street Bridge. Funding for this bridge replacement project was expedited due to deterioration of the bridge. When funding to complete the SR 167 Puyallup to SR 509 Extension project is available, the two-lane northbound bridge will be removed to make way for the ultimate configuration of a five-lane northbound bridge that was detailed in the 2007 ROD.
The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Supplemental EIS (FHWA–WA–EIS–2002–02–FS) and ROD issued concurrently on July 16, 2013, and in other documents in the FHWA administrative record. These documents are available by contacting FHWA or WSDOT at the addresses provided above. The combined Final Supplemental EIS and ROD can also be downloaded electronically from the project Web site at
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions on the project as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1), as amended by Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21), Pub. L. 112–141, sec. 1308, 126 Stat. 405 (2012).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of receipt of petition.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that nonconforming 1996 Chevrolet Impala passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of the 1996 Chevrolet Impala passenger cars) and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is August 29, 2013.
Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–5308).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
U.S. Specs of Havre de Grace, Maryland (Registered Importer R–03–321) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 1996 Chevrolet Impala passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which U.S. Specs believes are substantially similar are 1996 Chevrolet Impala passenger cars that were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 1996 Chevrolet Impala passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
U.S. Specs submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 1996 Chevrolet Impala passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 1996 Chevrolet Impala passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 110
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 114
Standard No. 118
Standard No. 201
Standard No. 206
Standard No. 208
Standard No. 209
The petitioner states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post if not already present to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of receipt of petition.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that nonconforming 2005 Jaguar XKR passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of 2005 Jaguar XKR passenger cars) and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is August 29, 2013.
Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–5308).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
U.S. Specs of Havre de Grace, Maryland (Registered Importer R–03–321) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2005 Jaguar XKR passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which U.S. Specs believes are substantially similar are 2005 Jaguar XKR passenger cars that were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 2005 Jaguar XKR passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
U.S. Specs submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2005 Jaguar XKR passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2005 Jaguar XKR passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 110
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 114
Standard No. 118
Standard No. 201
Standard No. 206
Standard No. 208
Standard No. 209
Standard No. 225
Standard No. 401
The petitioner states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicle near the left windshield post if not already present to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Grant of petition.
Osram Sylvania Products, Inc.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Osram has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on April 9, 2012 in the
For further information on this decision contact Mr. Michael Cole, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–2334, facsimile (202) 366–7002.
Osram stated that although the subject Type HB2 replaceable light source may not meet the required luminous flux specifications, the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Osram came to this conclusion based on the following results of testing that it conducted on a large sample of lamps using the subject noncompliant Type HB2 replaceable light sources:
(1) In half of the vehicle/lamp applications, the upper beam photometry specified for HB2 lamps will continue to be met;
(2) In the remaining applications, the photometry performance falls just below the specified minimums for HB2 lamps (and in no more than three, but typically just one or two, test points on a per-measured headlamp basis); and
(3) All lamps using the noncompliant bulbs perform at or above the upper beam photometry requirements of other lamp types, such as HB1 and HB5, that are currently permitted by FMVSS 108 and in prevalent use on U.S. roads.
Osram also stated that the issue that caused the subject noncompliance has been corrected at the production facility and all products currently being shipped meet the applicable requirements.
In summation, Osram believes that the described noncompliance of its Type HB2 replaceable light sources to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
Section S7.7 of FMVSS No. 108 specifically states:
S7.7 Each replaceable light source shall be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to part 564 of this chapter, and shall conform to the following requirements: . . .
NHTSA has reviewed and accepts Osram's analyses that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. While the replaceable light source marginally fails to comply with the luminous flux requirements of Docket No. NHTSA–1998–3397–0011, when it is placed into a headlamp, it does meet the FMVSS photometry requirements.
The subject replaceable light source fell 4% below the lower limit for the upper beam of HB2 bulbs, rendering it noncompliant. According to Osram, this was due to an incorrect filament wire being used during production. When this noncompliance was determined, the entire inventory of suspect light sources of Osram's sole customer of original equipment was returned to Osram. Therefore, this petition only applies to aftermarket products. Headlamp performance is primarily affected by luminous flux output and filament geometry. Osram found that while bulbs produced with the incorrect filament wire did not meet the upper beam luminous flux requirements, they did comply with upper beam filament geometry requirements. This allowed headlamps using the subject replaceable light sources to pass the upper beam photometry requirements specified in section UB3 of Table XVIII in FMVSS No. 108. Furthermore, in a 2006 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute report,
As such, NHTSA agrees that due to a combination of the following factors: The subject replaceable light source only fell 4% below the lower limit, headlamps with the subject light sources pass FMVSS 108 photometry requirements, only aftermarket products are affected, and only the upper beam is affected; an occupant using the noncompliant subject light source would not be exposed to a significantly greater risk than an occupant using a similar compliant light source. Therefore the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Osram has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance in the Type HB2 replaceable light sources identified in Osram's Noncompliance Information Report is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Osram's petition is granted and the Osram is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject Type HB2 replaceable light sources that Osram no longer controlled at the time it determined that a noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before August 29, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927–5331, email at
Notice and request for comments.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (the CDFI Fund), an office within the Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program Awardee Reporting Form.
Written comments should be received on or before September 30, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all comments to Mia Sowell, Senior Policy and Program Officer, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220, by email to
The BEA Program Awardee Reporting Form may be obtained from the BEA Program page of the CDFI Fund's Web site at
12 U.S.C. 1834a, 4703, 4713, 4717; 12 CFR part 1806.
Office of Acquisition and Logistics, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published an information collection notice in the
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 632–7492.
In FR Doc. 2013–17023, published on July 16, 2013, at 78FR42593, make the following corrections.
On page 42593, in the first column, under the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing a regulation that would require electronic reporting for current paper-based NPDES reports. This action will save time and resources for permittees, states, tribes, territories, and EPA while improving compliance and providing better protection of the Nation's waters. The proposed Clean Water Act regulation would require permittees and regulators to use existing, available information technology to electronically report information and data related to the NPDES permit program in lieu of filing written reports. The proposal will also allow better allocation and use of limited program resources and enhance transparency and public accountability by providing regulatory agencies and the public with more timely, complete, accurate, and nationally-consistent sets of data about the NPDES program and potential sources of water pollution. The benefits of this proposed rulemaking should allow NPDES-authorized programs in states, tribes, and territories to shift precious resources from data management activities to those more targeted to solving water quality and noncompliance issues. This in turn may contribute to increased compliance, improved water quality, and a level playing field for the regulated community.
Given the large scope of this proposal, EPA commits to offer an additional opportunity for transparency and engagement by publishing a supplemental notice should we receive comments on the proposed rule that require significant changes. States, tribes, territories, permittees, and other stakeholders can review and comment on the supplemental notice. EPA plans to publish the supplemental notice within 180 days after the public comment period for this proposed rule has closed.
Comments on this proposed action must be received on or before October 28, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0274 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For additional information, please contact John Dombrowski, Director, Enforcement Targeting and Data Division, Office of Compliance (mail code 2222A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566–0742; email address:
The outline of this notice follows the following format:
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Electronic Reporting Rule. The proposed rule would substitute electronic reporting for paper-based reports, and over the long term save time and resources for permittees, states, tribes, territories, and EPA while improving compliance and better protecting the Nation's waters. The proposed rule would require permittees and regulators to use existing, available information technology to electronically report information and data related to the NPDES permit program in lieu of filing written reports.
The purpose and need for the proposed rule was re-confirmed in the development of the Clean Water Act Action Plan. Announced by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in October 2009, the Plan was a collaborative effort by EPA and state environmental agencies to explore opportunities to improve water quality by emphasizing and adopting new approaches that will improve how the NPDES permitting and enforcement program is administered. The goals of the Plan include improving transparency of the information on compliance and enforcement activities in each state, connecting this information to local water quality, and providing the public with real-time, easy access to this information. The proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule would make achievement of these goals possible through the use of available technology to electronically report facility locational and operational data, and discharge, monitoring, compliance, and enforcement data.
Historically, EPA and NPDES-authorized states have focused on the largest or “major” facilities as a way of prioritizing resources for permitting, enforcement and data reporting to EPA. Over time, there has been a growing recognition that other sources also impact water quality. Storm water discharges, concentrated animal feeding operations, mines, and raw sanitary sewage overflows are all significant contributors to water quality impairment but are not currently considered “major” facilities under the NPDES program. The proposed rule improves data quality for major and nonmajor facilities, thereby providing the states, tribes, territories, and EPA with more complete and comparable data on a substantial majority of NPDES permittees, and allowing targeted action to address the biggest water quality problems.
EPA is proposing this rule under CWA sections 101(f), 304(i), 308, 402, and 501. EPA notes that the Congressional Declaration of goals and policy of the CWA specifies, in CWA section 101(f), “It is the national policy that to the maximum extent possible the procedures utilized for implementing this chapter shall encourage the drastic minimization of paperwork and interagency decision procedures, and the best use of available manpower and funds, so as to prevent needless duplication and unnecessary delays at all levels of government.”
Implementation of information technology that is now a common part daily life is an important step toward reaching these aspirations for implementation of the CWA. EPA is proposing this rule under the authority of CWA section 304(i) that authorizes EPA to establish minimum procedural and other elements of State programs under section 402, including reporting requirements and procedures to make information available to the public. In addition, EPA is proposing this rule under section 308 of the CWA. Section 308 of the CWA authorizes EPA to require information to carry out the objectives of the Act, including sections 301, 305, 306, 307, 311, 402, 404, 405, and 504. Section 402 of the CWA establishes the NPDES permit program for the control of the discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters. EPA is proposing this rule under CWA sections 402(b) and (c), which require each authorized state, tribe, or territory to ensure that permits meet certain substantive requirements, and provide EPA information from point sources, industrial users, and authorized programs in order to ensure proper oversight. Finally, EPA is proposing to issue this rule under the authority of section 501 of the Act, authorizing EPA to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out provisions of the Act.
This proposed rule would require that reports submitted in writing now (i.e., Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), Notices of Intent to discharge in compliance with a general permit, other general permit waivers, certifications, and notices of termination of coverage, and program reports) be submitted electronically by NPDES-permitted facilities to EPA through the National Environmental Information Exchange Network or to the authorized state, tribe, or territory NPDES program. Importantly, while the proposed rule changes the method by which information on NPDES notices of intent for coverage under general permits, facility discharges, monitoring of compliance, facility reports, and enforcement responses is provided (i.e., electronic rather than paper-based), it does not increase the amount of information required from NPDES-permitted facilities under existing regulations.
States, tribes, and territories that are authorized to implement the NPDES program are the sources of certain key information regarding the regulated facilities. For example, states have facility information from NPDES permit applications, permit information including outfalls, limits, and permit conditions, compliance determination information including that from inspections, and enforcement response information. Under this regulation, NPDES permitting authorities are required to share this information electronically with EPA.
To promote transparency and accountability, EPA intends to make this more complete set of data available to the public, providing communities and citizens with easily accessible information on facility and government performance. Such data provides a powerful incentive to improve performance by giving government, permittees, and the public ready access to compliance information. This can serve to elevate the importance of compliance information and environmental performance within regulated entities, providing opportunity for them to quickly address any noncompliance. It opens the opportunity for two-way communication between authorized NPDES programs or EPA and regulated facilities to immediately address data quality issues and to provide compliance assistance or take other action when potential problems are identified. Complete and accurate data also will allow EPA to compare performance across authorized programs.
Key provisions of this proposed rule are identified in the implementation schedule in Table IV.3 of the preamble. These include the preliminary indication of the anticipated initial recipient of the NPDES program data,
Given the large scope of this proposal, EPA commits to offer an additional opportunity for transparency and engagement by publishing a supplemental notice should we receive comments on the proposed rule that require significant changes. EPA plans to publish the supplemental notice within 180 days after the public comment period for this proposed rule has closed.
To fully implement this regulation, there will be initial investment costs associated with needed changes to information technology and infrastructure. EPA plans to develop NPDES electronic reporting tools, or states may choose to devote their resources to develop their own such tools while meeting the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127. EPA is committed to working with the states, tribes, and territories to develop their electronic databases and capabilities in a cost-effective manner.
The cost of implementing the proposed rule in the first four years after the effective date is approximately $50.6 million. The cost is estimated to drop to $2.9 million per year after that time period, when all regulated facilities will be converted to electronic reporting. However, two years after rule promulgation, annual savings greatly outweigh annual costs, by approximately $29 million per year.
EPA anticipates that the proposed rule will save money for states, tribes, and territories as well as EPA and NPDES permittees, while resulting in a more complete, accurate, and nationally-consistent set of data about the NPDES program. By the fifth year of implementation, the anticipated savings for the states is $28.9 million annually; for the permittees, $1.2 million annually; and for EPA, $0.7 million annually.
The electronic submittal of data may result in improved water quality and will result in significant cost savings for the states, as well as savings for the permittees, tribes and EPA, when the rule is fully implemented. The proposal will also reduce the reporting burden currently borne by the states, improve overall facility compliance, allow better allocation and use of limited program resources, and enhance transparency and public accountability by providing the public with timely information on potential sources of water pollution.
Other anticipated benefits for the proposed rule include efficiencies and reduced costs of processing paper forms, improved quality and accuracy of the data available to regulatory agencies and the public, more timely and expanded use of the data to identify, target, and address problems, quicker availability of the data for use, and increased accessibility and transparency of the
The proposed rule will also lighten the reporting burden currently placed on the states. Upon successful implementation, the proposed rule would provide states with regulatory relief from reporting associated with the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR), the Annual Non-Compliance Report (ANCR), the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report, and the biosolids information required to be submitted to EPA annually by states.
Entities potentially affected by this action would include all NPDES-permitted facilities, whether covered by an individually-issued permit or by a general permit, industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs, and governmental entities that have received NPDES program authorization or are implementing portions of the NPDES program in a cooperative agreement with EPA. These entities would include:
This table is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but rather provides readers with some examples of the types of entities likely to be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this table may also be regulated.
You may find the following suggestions helpful when preparing your comments to EPA on this preamble and proposed rule:
• To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number (found in the
• To help ensure that your submission is routed correctly, on the first page of your submission, provide the name of the proposed rule; date of the
• Clearly identify those sections of the preamble or the proposed rule on which you are commenting.
• Explain why you agree or disagree, and explain your views as clearly as possible.
• Describe clearly any assumptions that you used as a basis for your comments.
• Provide any technical information and/or data that you used to support your views.
• If you provide any estimate of potential economic burdens or costs, please carefully consider the information provided in the preamble to this proposed rule, particularly in Sections VII (Non-Monetary Benefits and Economic Analysis), VIII.A (Regulatory Planning and Review), VIII.C (Regulatory Flexibility Act), and IV.D (Data Considerations), and provide detailed explanations of how you arrived at your estimate.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your comments or concerns.
• Clearly identify preferred options and, if applicable, offer feasible alternatives that will effectively meet the same goals.
Submit your comments as directed in the Addresses section of this
The 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) and subsequent amendments are now commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA establishes a comprehensive program for protecting and restoring our nation's waters. The CWA established the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit program to authorize and control the discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States (CWA section 402(a)). This proposed electronic reporting rule, which is intended to reduce resource burdens associated with the paper-based system and increase the speed, quality, and scope of information received by EPA, the states, tribes, territories, and the public, echoes the goals of CWA section 101(f).
EPA is proposing this rule under CWA sections 101(f), 304(i), 308, 402, and 501. EPA notes that the Congressional Declaration of goals and policy of the CWA specifies, in CWA section 101(f), “It is the national policy that to the maximum extent possible the procedures utilized for implementing this chapter shall encourage the drastic minimization of paperwork and interagency decision procedures, and the best use of available manpower and funds, so as to prevent needless duplication and unnecessary delays at all levels of government.”
Implementation of information technology that is now a common part daily life is an important step toward reaching these aspirations for implementation of the CWA. EPA is proposing this rule under the authority of CWA section 304(i) that authorizes EPA to establish minimum procedural and other elements of State programs under section 402, including reporting requirements and procedures to make information available to the public. In addition, EPA is proposing this rule under section 308 of the CWA. Section 308 of the CWA authorizes EPA to require information to carry out the objectives of the Act, including sections 301, 305, 306, 307, 311, 402, 404, 405, and 504. Section 402 of the CWA establishes the NPDES permit program for the control of the discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters. EPA is proposing this rule under CWA sections 402(b) and (c), which require each authorized state, tribe, or territory to ensure that permits meet certain substantive requirements, and provide EPA information from point sources, industrial users, and the authorized program in order to ensure proper oversight. Finally, EPA is proposing to issue this rule under the authority of section 501 of the Act, authorizing EPA to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out provisions of the Act.
As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program protects the nation's waters by controlling the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. Such discharges are illegal unless authorized by an NPDES permit. NPDES permits may be issued by EPA or by a state, tribe, or territory authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES program. As of October 1, 2011, EPA has authorized 46 states and the Virgin Islands to implement the basic NPDES program as well as the general permits program; as of that same date, no tribe was currently authorized to implement the NPDES program. There are several subprograms of the NPDES program that states, tribes, and territories may also receive authorization from EPA to administer, including the pretreatment and the biosolids programs. As of October 1, 2011, 36 states are authorized to implement the pretreatment program and eight states are authorized to implement the biosolids program as part of the NPDES program.
NPDES permit authorization to discharge may be provided under an individual NPDES permit, which is developed after a process initiated by the facility submission of a permit application (40 CFR 122.21), or under a general NPDES permit (
EPA has developed criteria to determine which sources should be considered “major” facilities. The distinction was made initially to assist EPA, states, tribes, and territories in setting priorities for permitting, compliance, and enforcement activities. Historically, EPA has placed greater priority on major facilities and has required NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and territories to provide more information about these dischargers. The existing regulations establish annual, semi-annual, and quarterly reporting requirements (some of which focused on major facilities) that organize violation information, thus facilitating EPA's assessment of the effectiveness of authorized programs and EPA regional program activities (
In order to support development of appropriate permit limits and conditions, issuance of effective permits, compliance monitoring, and appropriate enforcement actions, EPA has developed policies, guidance, requirements, and expectations to track,
Although large municipal and industrial point sources continue to be significant sources of pollution, NPDES permits of smaller sources show that these point sources also contribute significant amounts of pollutants to our nation's waters. About 29,000 nonmajor facilities have individual permits which have requirements similar to the permits for major facilities. As the understanding of water quality issues has grown, the universe of regulated nonmajor sources has also expanded. In order to efficiently manage the growing universe of regulated facilities, smaller sources are often regulated under general permits rather than individual permits. In many cases, nonmajor facilities use pollutant control measures based on best management practices in operational activities rather than on implementation of pollutant control technologies, which are measured with numeric effluent limits on pollutant discharges. Several hundred thousand nonmajor facilities are covered by NPDES general permits; therefore, the number of nonmajor dischargers covered by general permits is very large compared to the number of major or nonmajor dischargers covered by individual permits. The universe of nonmajor dischargers also includes some large volume dischargers (
The most recent state water quality assessment reports submitted under CWA section 305(b) and compiled by EPA in the National Water Quality Inventory Reports indicate the growing significance and link between nonmajor sources and impairments in water quality of U.S. waters, particularly from precipitation-induced or “wet-weather” point sources of pollutants.
In the past, states, tribes, and territories were not generally required to consistently report information to EPA on most wet-weather sources. Therefore, EPA and the public do not currently have complete information on these additional sources of pollution. Electronic reporting provides an efficient and cost-effective solution to the problem of gaining access to this data, and assists EPA, states, tribes, and territories in focusing their limited resources on significant water pollution sources and serious violations, whether from major or nonmajor facilities.
In the context of developing this proposed rule, EPA has reviewed the existing NPDES program reporting requirements and expectations (as identified in existing statutes, regulations, policy documents, and guidance documents) as they apply to states, tribes, and territories, and NPDES-regulated facilities. For a detailed description of these reporting requirements and expectations,
Historically, EPA has used the Permit Compliance System (PCS), a national data system developed in 1982, to support the NPDES program. As of December 2012, all States have had their NPDES data migrated from PCS into ICIS–NPDES, the updated replacement NPDES data system for PCS. EPA plans to decommission PCS by the third quarter of the federal fiscal year 2013 (April–June 2013).
The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) serves as the repository for multi-media facility, compliance, and enforcement data at the federal level. ICIS–NPDES is the incorporation of NPDES program-specific requirements into ICIS. ICIS–NPDES ensures that the NPDES information regarding major facilities remains available, accessible, and in a nationally consistent format for analyses. ICIS–NPDES also provides means to track and access nonmajor NPDES information that was not historically available in PCS (particularly regarding various NPDES subprograms). For more background information regarding PCS and ICIS–NPDES,
On October 15, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced an action plan focused on the revitalization of the Clean Water Act NPDES program, with an emphasis on compliance and enforcement (“U.S. EPA Administrator Jackson Takes New Steps to Improve Water Quality,” DCN 0009). The goals of this Clean Water Act Action Plan include:
• Raising the bar for Clean Water Act enforcement performance and ensuring a focus on the most significant sources and the most serious violators threatening water quality;
• Improving performance in authorized states and EPA where EPA is the permitting authority;
• Improving and enhancing the information available on the EPA Web site regarding compliance and enforcement activities in each state, tribe, and territory, showing connections to local water quality where possible; and
• Providing public access to information in a user-friendly format that is easily understandable and useable. See DCN 0042.
Historically, EPA has relied on its EPA regional offices and authorized NPDES programs in states, tribes, and territories to submit the information in EPA's national NPDES data systems. As currently drafted, and subject to public comment, this proposed rule would require, under the authority of sections 304(i), 308, and 402 of the CWA, that the unique source of the NPDES information electronically submit the
This proposed rule identifies essential NPDES facility-specific information that EPA and authorized programs need to receive electronically from NPDES-permitted facilities and information that NPDES-authorized programs need to submit to EPA. This information would be submitted to EPA in a nationally-consistent manner [
Under this approach to electronic reporting, EPA is proposing to revise the existing federal regulations addressing state, tribe, and territory NPDES program requirements, pretreatment, biosolids management, and other parts of NPDES subprograms (such as concentrated animal feeding operations, stormwater, and sewer overflows) to change the mode by which NPDES information is provided. EPA has identified the following NPDES data types for which electronic submission will be required from the NPDES-regulated facilities:
• Self-monitoring information as reported on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for major and nonmajor facilities (including subprograms as appropriate), and similar self-monitoring pretreatment-related information submitted by industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs. Facilities are already required to report this information via paper reports. It also represents the largest current reporting burden on states as they are required to report this information to EPA for major facilities;
• General permit reports [Notice of Intent to be covered (NOI); Notice of Termination (NOT); No Exposure Certifications (NECs); Low Erosivity Waivers (LEWs)], which are required for initial permit coverage, permit coverage termination, approval for permit coverage, or permit exclusion. These reports would be submitted electronically from facilities in relation to coverage under a general NPDES permit (rather than an individually-issued NPDES permit);
• Sewer overflow event and bypass event reports for POTWs or other sewerage systems with CSOs, SSOs, or bypass events, as required by the NPDES permit, and incidents of noncompliance as required by 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6);
• Annual or more frequent pretreatment reports from facilities with approved local pretreatment programs;
• Annual reports from CAFOs;
• Annual reports from NPDES-regulated biosolids generators and handlers; and
• Annual reports (or less frequent reports as required by the permit) from MS4 permittees.
Existing federal regulations already require the submission of each of these reports; however, most of these reports are submitted on paper. As indicated in this proposed rule, EPA is considering requiring NPDES-regulated facilities to submit these reports electronically. The data types associated with these reports are described in greater detail in Section IV.E.
Under the proposed rule, EPA would continue to require certain NPDES information from the authorized states, tribes, and territories, particularly information linked to the NPDES-related implementation, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities and responsibilities of the states, tribes, and territories. The types of NPDES information that EPA proposes to require the NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and territories to report would include:
• Facility and permit information for individually-issued NPDES permits (much of this information is already reported to EPA and resides in national NPDES databases) and for industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs;
• Information associated with general permits (generally to be entered by states, tribes, and territories once in the permit cycle, and when the permit is modified, and linked to facility-submitted NOI information);
• Information regarding compliance monitoring and inspection activities;
• Compliance determination information;
• Enforcement action information;
• Other NPDES information required to be submitted electronically from permittees but routed by the electronic reporting tools to the states, tribes, or territories rather than to EPA; and
• Other NPDES information covered by this proposed rule but submitted by the permittee to the state, tribe, or territory in paper form under an approved temporary waiver.
Each of these NPDES data types to be submitted by NPDES-authorized programs is described in Section IV.F. In addition, upon the successful implementation of this rule and the significant use of electronic reporting tools for submission of NPDES information from permittees and regulated entities, EPA would also plan to phase out the state, tribe, and territory responsibilities for several existing authorized program reporting requirements to EPA, including those associated with: (1) The Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR) regarding major facilities (40 CFR 123.45(a)); (2) the semi-annual statistical summary report regarding major facilities (40 CFR 123.45(b)); (3) the Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR) regarding nonmajor facilities (40 CFR 123.45(c)); and (4) the annual authorized program biosolids reports (40 CFR 501.21). Proposed changes to these reporting requirements are described in more detail in Section III.B.6 and Sections IV.F.5 of the preamble.
In the sections that follow, EPA presents information regarding practical examples of the feasibility of electronic reporting, the benefits of improved NPDES program transparency, the utility of NPDES information gathered, and the advantages of a central data system.
As information technology has advanced, electronic reporting of information, as well as other electronic transactions, has become relatively commonplace in government, business, and everyday life. Moving many of the NPDES program's reporting requirements to electronic submission will likely provide significant benefits, specifically by:
• Saving permittees, states, tribes, territories, and EPA time and money and freeing up resources to tackle the most serious water pollution problems;
• Improving water quality through a better basis for targeting of resources;
• Improving facility compliance by creating a new awareness of a facility's compliance status for the facility, the regulated community, the public, and across all levels of government;
• Empowering the public by improving transparency and accountability through the provision of more complete and accurate information about sources of water pollution in their communities;
• Improving EPA-state relationships by focusing on performance rather than on data quality or completeness issues;
• Improving the basis for decision-making by states and EPA due to more accurate, timely and complete information about the NPDES program; and
• Enabling EPA, states, tribes, and territories to better develop compliance monitoring approaches to target the most serious problems.
Furthermore, these benefits will accrue sooner if electronic reporting of NPDES information is required, has significant national consistency, and happens in a timely manner. Development and implementation of a consistent set of electronic reporting tools would significantly help make required electronic reporting feasible, practical, and cost-effective.
Electronic reporting implemented in some states has significantly improved its data quality and data availability while reducing its costs. Requiring electronic reporting is an efficient way to achieve complete data on the expanded NPDES regulated universe in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Better nationally-available information will help improve the NPDES program overall.
Electronic reporting is not a new concept. Identified below are three practical examples of the use of electronic reporting by or within (1) state government (Ohio's experience with electronic DMRs); (2) federal government (the Internal Revenue Service); and (3) the regulated community (an industry perspective). Additional examples [such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Corporate Finance (regarding possible hardship exemptions for electronic reporting), medical records, the Toxic Release Inventory, recent EPA air rules, and NetDMR] are described in Section VII and DCN 0011.
A case study of the efforts of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) to require electronic reporting of DMRs highlights how a successful implementation of a mandatory electronic reporting system can dramatically improve the way a state, tribe, or territory manages its NPDES program.
Prior to use of its eDMR, Ohio EPA needed five full-time staff members to support the DMR program. By switching to an eDMR program, however, Ohio EPA was able to shift its staffing responsibilities to run the program without any full-time staff members, effectively redirecting its resources to address the most important water pollution problems in Ohio.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides tax payers and preparers the option of filing their tax forms electronically. After a tax return is complete and signed by the appropriate person, tax preparation software approved by the IRS for electronic filing provides the necessary instructions to electronically submit the return and authorize the filing via IRS e-file. During this process, the electronic return data is converted into the format defined by IRS for electronic filing. IRS-authorized e-file providers or taxpayers may transmit directly to IRS or use a third party transmitter. Transmitters use the internet to transmit electronic return data to the IRS Modernized e-File system (MeF). MeF is a web-based system that allows electronic filing of corporate, partnership, exempt organization, and excise tax returns through the Internet. MeF uses the widely accepted extensible Markup Language (XML) format and provides benefits including more explicit identification of errors, faster acknowledgements, and an integrated payment option.
In 2011, 79 percent of all individual Federal tax returns were e-filed, a noticeable increase over prior years. Both preparer and self-prepared e-file rates increased, which IRS officials attributed to different factors. IRS officials said an e-file mandate was one key factor in the growth of preparer e-filing. Several preparers also noted that they now find that e-filing helps their business—for example, by reducing the time needed to file returns (see DCN 0012).
In recent years, environmental management software solutions have become the standard for any organization seeking to craft a streamlined, effective and proactive environmental management system (see DCN 0013). These tools allow facilities to ensure their regulatory compliance, conform to widely accepted environmental management standards (
EPA intends to work with states, tribes, territories, and third-party software vendors to develop and have in place all of the electronic reporting tools and National Environmental Information Exchange Network protocols required to implement this regulation prior to the effective date of the final rule. EPA is not proposing that NPDES-regulated facilities must use an EPA-developed electronic reporting tool. Rather, EPA is providing the flexibility for facilities to have a range of options including an EPA electronic reporting tool, a tool developed by a state authorized to implement the NPDES program, or potentially tools developed by third-party vendors, if such tools meet the requirements of this proposed rule. EPA is proposing this flexibility because it recognizes that many states, tribes, and territories have their own electronic data systems and reporting tools for managing NPDES data. For example, EPA is aware that, as of October 2011, 24 states have a working version of an electronic DMR (eDMR), 10 states have an eDMR system planned, and eight states have some form of electronic NOI (eNOI
All of the electronic reporting tools, whether already existing or to be developed (by EPA, state, or third-party software vendors), utilized to support this regulation would need to be compliant with EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR)
EPA, states, tribes, territories, and third-party software vendors could choose to build these tools through incremental approaches such that each tool implementation would benefit from the existing framework and intellectual capital established during the previous phase of tool implementation. In addition, users and regulatory authorities would experience familiar, repeatable processes and activities when interacting with tools developed using this framework. The tools to be developed for the electronic submission of the information would support regulated users who are applying for coverage under a general permit, or submitting information required by EPA regulations (
One of the goals of this regulatory effort is to increase electronic reporting from NPDES-regulated entities. Simplifying the process for preparing these reports would help to promote and increase electronic reporting. One option for simplifying the preparation of reports is to build electronic reporting into software which is available for use by the reporting entity. For example, several facilities currently use software to compile information used in preparing required reports, such as DMRs.
EPA could utilize an open platform option similar to the IRS model for electronic reporting, which uses third-party software vendors for tax data collection and transmission (
• This open platform model also builds on the “good government” recommendations from the White House Forum on Modernizing Government. In particular, the report from this forum strongly encouraged federal agencies to “consider available technology solutions before defaulting to costly, long-term system development efforts”;
• Open market competition would give software vendors a stake in client satisfaction, with the result that they would strive to develop and maintain software that is easy and user-friendly, provide additional support, and integrate with other data management systems. These data management systems, developed to be used by regulated entities, will likely need to be certified or approved by EPA before use;
• Software vendors would likely have a good understanding of the business needs of their clients;
• Software vendors would likely compete with one another through tiered services, which would keep costs lower for those clients who want minimum data management and reporting capabilities. Software vendors could also provide other services (
• Competition between vendors would enhance the quality of the electronic data collection tool in terms of creating greater utility from the data, which could improve facility operations and lead to better environmental performance;
• Software vendors are better equipped at quickly adapting new technologies and other opportunities for efficiencies and cost savings; and
• Finally, the open platform concept would lead to faster adoption of new software and technologies (
EPA solicits comment on this open platform option of allowing software vendors to offer their clients federal electronic reporting services compliant with the final rule and on potential methods for determining whether third-party software vendors meet the minimum federal electronic reporting requirements. EPA would need to
EPA shares with the public NPDES information that is currently available (except for that information which is specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, or confidential enforcement and business information), but recognizes that increased transparency of NPDES program implementation and compliance is essential. This proposed rule, in combination with efforts by EPA and the authorized programs to make facility compliance information readily available and accessible, and parallel efforts by EPA, states, tribes, and territories to provide more information regarding their implementation efforts, would enable the public to be better informed on local and national problems and on efforts being made to address those problems. To keep pace with program and technology changes, this proposed rule seeks to increase the transparency and utility of reporting requirements and to facilitate the ability of EPA, states, tribes, and territories to focus on the problems of greatest concern to protect human health and water quality. Increased information may also help the public to press for improved performance from the regulated community, federal, state, tribal, and territorial governments, and for better protection of human health and the environment. EPA has received feedback from states and public data users that they find the existing terminology and nomenclature for categorizing violations to be confusing. The proposed changes to noncompliance reporting would provide clarity for categorizing violations.
Among the many benefits of the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule would be the opportunity to enhance EPA's existing publicly accessible NPDES information. EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Web site currently provides online access to compliance monitoring and enforcement data for approximately 800,000 regulated facilities across the United States. The information provided is an integrated compilation of federal and authorized program environmental inspections, violation determinations, enforcement actions, and other environmental records collected pursuant to the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The information collected/reported by EPA, state, and local environmental agencies or facilities is submitted through EPA's national and federal databases, such as PCS and ICIS. The web interface ultimately provides the public, government officials, investors, with environmental reports and compliance information.
The proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule would enhance the features of ECHO in several ways, for example:
• The proposed rule would provide a complete inventory of NPDES-permitted facilities which can be included in ECHO; All violations identified through inspections and other compliance monitoring activities by EPA, states, tribes, and territories would be made available through public search. Currently, the EPA PCS Policy Statement (as amended) states that state NPDES programs must enter inspection related violation determinations into EPA's data system for facilities with NPDES permits designated as majors and pretreatment related violations associated with POTWs that have an approved pretreatment program. States are not currently expected to enter any other inspection related violation determinations into EPA's data system;
• Compliance information would become available from smaller facilities, such as DMRs and program reports, closing important knowledge gaps;
• Information on enforcement actions and associated penalties would be more complete;
• Documents related to noncompliance (e.g., the proposed NPDES Noncompliance Report) would be more accessible, resulting in increased efficiency in tracking and resolving noncompliance status;
• Comparative analysis would be made easier by utilizing a national consistent set of data (i.e., Appendix A to part 40 CFR part 127);
• Timeliness of data would improve; and
• Integration of permit and water quality assessment information would also be improved through better linkage of facility locational data (e.g., latitude and longitude data) and information on the receiving waters (e.g., receiving waterbody name for permitted feature).
In conclusion, the requirement of electronic reporting of NPDES information is expected to result in greater availability of timely and complete information to the public because of reliance on electronic transmission and retrieval of information. Tracking data electronically is less expensive, more efficient, more accurate, and better able to support program management decisions than is paper tracking. Furthermore, electronic tracking allows more information to be shared with the public. This eliminates transaction costs for the public and for permitting authorities previously involved in obtaining or exchanging information kept only in hard-copy format.
In the development of this proposed rule, and particularly in the identification of required NPDES data, EPA has identified several key EPA uses for the NPDES information. These include:
• Permitting, compliance, and enforcement decisions affecting individual facilities or watersheds;
• Informing national program decisions and rulemakings;
• Managing and overseeing national and state, tribal, or territorial program performance, management and oversight;
• Leveling the playing field between dischargers, and between states, tribes, and territories, regarding availability of compliance information;
• Establishing program performance indicators;
• Developing trend data on facility compliance and government performance; and
• Preparing for and responding to emergencies.
Each of these EPA uses of NPDES information is described in more detail in DCN 0015. Better availability and consistency of NPDES information through electronic reporting will enhance the usefulness of this data for a variety of purposes.
Congress and the public expect environmental program managers at every level of government—local, state, tribal, territorial, and federal—to design and implement programs that deliver environmental results. In order to target the most important pollution problems and most serious noncompliance, to better ensure environmental protection and public health, and to enable more integrated program assessment and planning at the national level, data used by EPA should have the following characteristics:
•
•
•
Similarly, incomplete data may result in inaccurate conclusions as to noncompliance rates for nonmajor permittees. EPA found through the Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR) (
•
The above examples demonstrate the need for a shared definition and central management of the information necessary to manage the NPDES program, ready access to that information by states, tribes, territories, and EPA, and assurance that the data across the states, tribes, and territories are complete, accurate, and timely-reported. The proposed rule would provide definitions for the shared data, ensure the accessibility of that information, and provide the basis for ensuring that the data are nationally consistent, complete, accurate, and timely.
Today, the NEIEN is making environmental protection more efficient and helping to improve the quality of the environmental decision-making processes. The proposed rule utilizes the NEIEN for sharing NPDES program data between regulated entities; NPDES permit programs, and EPA. This information sharing network helps facilitate the reporting and information sharing requirements in the proposed rule.
Many environmental problems cross jurisdictions. The business of managing and solving these problems has become very information-intensive. Environmental policymakers and other stakeholders need access to timely, accurate, and consistent data that present a holistic picture of the environment in order to make better decisions.
Previous approaches to environmental information exchange were often inefficient. Currently, most environmental data are stored in electronic data management systems. Electronic data sharing between agencies is not a simple and automatic process; because, many of these systems are incompatible with each other. Even similar systems can have difficulties exchanging information when the data are not identically structured.
The National Environmental Information Exchange Network (“NEIEN”) supported by EPA uses eXtensible markup language (XML), web services, and common data standards to overcome system incompatibility, allowing partners to securely and automatically exchange environmental data. The NEIEN is helping participants to reduce costs, save time, and overcome delays in making better informed decisions and responding to environmental emergencies.
For example, states in the Pacific Northwest are using the NEIEN to share ambient water quality data to improve decision-making for the protection of water quality.
Where authorized programs elect to electronically receive data from reporting entities, they should work with EPA to ensure that their data systems can automate data transfers to EPA of the data required in the new 40 CFR part 127 and Appendix A to part 127 developed for this proposed rule, rather than having NPDES-regulated facilities in their state, tribe, or territory electronically report directly to EPA. Likewise, EPA intends to work with states to ensure that any data collected by EPA on behalf of an authorized NPDES program can be shared with the state, tribe, or territory via an automated process in a timely manner. These EPA-to-authorized-program and authorized-program-to-EPA data exchanges are expected to use the National Environmental Information Exchange Network. Using the NEIEN and an automated data flow between EPA and the states, tribes, and territories would allow states, tribes, and territories to benefit from electronic reporting in the event they have not yet developed their own electronic reporting tools or choose not to develop them.
The NEIEN options for electronically flowing permit data from states, tribes, and territories to EPA were made available at the end of February 2011 and the NEIEN options to transfer enforcement and compliance data to ICIS–NPDES are under development as of October 2011. States and EPA are meeting regularly as an Integrated Project Team (IPT) to jointly discuss the design of the remaining components of the ICIS–NPDES data flow and the ongoing transition from the Permit Compliance System (PCS) to the modernized ICIS–NPDES data system. Authorized programs are encouraged to participate in the IPT to keep abreast of development timelines and progress. When the ICIS–NPDES compliance and enforcement data flows are complete and all state data has been migrated from PCS to ICIS–NPDES, the PCS data system is expected to be retired by EPA (in 2013, prior to full implementation of this rule).
As mentioned earlier in Section III.A, on October 15, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the Clean Water Act Action Plan focused on the revitalization of the Clean Water Act NPDES program, with an emphasis on compliance and enforcement (see DCN 0009). EPA Administrator Jackson also then announced to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives that, as part of the CWA Action Plan, she was directing her staff to “quickly develop a proposed rule requiring electronic reporting from regulated facilities, to replace the current paper based system.”
The CWA Action Plan recognizes that EPA lacks nationally consistent and complete information on the facilities, permits, pollutant discharges, and compliance status of most NPDES-regulated facilities.
Electronic reporting is identified as a key component of the new system envisioned by the CWA Action Plan and would greatly reduce the burden on states, tribes, territories, EPA, and regulated facilities of submitting and processing paper forms. Under the CWA Action Plan, EPA intends to find innovative, resource-efficient ways of collecting, using, and making available to the public information about where pollution sources are located, what pollution they produce, their relationship to water quality, and where violations are most severe.
Through the Clean Water Act Action Plan Discussion Forum, EPA solicited ideas from the public that encompassed a broad range of perspectives (DCN 0017). Outreach to states, tribes, territories, community groups, industry, and environmental organizations ensured an opportunity for participation in the forum.
As currently drafted, and subject to public comment, this proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule would help to achieve the CWA Action Plan goals. By requiring reports to be submitted electronically by regulated facilities, EPA would be able to provide more complete, accurate, and timely information to both regulators and the public. This would improve transparency and accountability, and help EPA, states, tribes, and territories to monitor compliance with NPDES permits.
In an effort to address state concerns over escalating reporting requirements, EPA and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) launched the Burden Reduction Initiative in October 2006.
EPA asked states to identify their top five reporting requirements with potential for streamlining or elimination. Thirty-nine states responded to the October 2006 data call by EPA, recommending more than 200 ways to reduce reporting frequency and level of detail, increase electronic data entry, and standardize regional differences in reporting requirements to the greatest extent possible.
Several states identified NPDES compliance reporting as a priority area for burden reduction. Specifically, those states recommended that reporting requirements for three NPDES reports required under EPA's NPDES regulations (40 CFR 123.45) be reduced or eliminated. They recommended that EPA reduce the reporting frequency for the Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR) required under 40 CFR 123.45(a) and eliminate the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary, required under 40 CFR 123.45(b), and the Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR), required under 40 CFR 123.45(c). States suggested the elimination of these reports to reduce their burden of implementing the NPDES program.
The QNCR is a quarterly report regarding major NPDES-regulated facilities in noncompliance; under 40 CFR 123.45(a), this report is required to be submitted to EPA by states, tribes, and territories authorized to implement the NPDES program. These reports are used by EPA, states, tribes, and territories to track progress and assess the effectiveness of NPDES compliance monitoring and enforcement activities.
The ANCR is an annual report submitted to EPA by states, tribes, and territories authorized to implement the NPDES program; in this report, as required under 40 CFR 123.45(c), the states, tribes, and territories provide information regarding the total number of nonmajor NPDES-regulated facilities that have been reviewed for the purpose of making compliance determinations, the number of non-complying nonmajor
The semi-annual statistical summary report is a semi-annual report regarding major NPDES-regulated facilities exhibiting a particular type of noncompliance; under 40 CFR 123.45(b), this report is required to be submitted to EPA by states authorized to implement the NPDES program.
As part of the proposed rule, EPA is seeking comment on changes to 40 CFR 123.45, entitled “Noncompliance and program reporting by the Director.” The purposes of these changes would be to: (1) Reduce the state reporting burden by phasing out reports that can be produced automatically by EPA from a national data system—(such as the QNCR); (2) provide a more accurate and comprehensive report of known violations using a more complete set of noncompliance data that would flow to EPA as a result of this proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule; (3) improve EPA's ability to analyze, track, and manage violations and ensure that the full universe of NPDES sources is considered in tracking, analyzing, and managing compliance and enforcement programs; and (4) establish a better process to ensure EPA is focused on the appropriate pollutants and can keep pace with changes to the permitting program and new limit types.
EPA is proposing to establish a new public inventory, the NPDES Noncompliance Report (NNCR), of all reported violations. The proposed changes to the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 123.45 are discussed in greater detail in Section IV.F.5 of the preamble.
As currently drafted, and subject to public comment, the proposed rule should allow EPA to eliminate the state, tribe, and territory reporting requirements within the existing QNCR, semi-annual statistical summary report, and ANCR requirements because the proposed rule would enable EPA to generate this report directly from information in its federal data systems based on facility, state, tribe, and territory reporting. The regulatory changes would eliminate the requirements that states, tribes, and territories submit the QNCR, semi-annual statistical summary report, and ANCR by a date certain after rule implementation. EPA would then take over the obligation of generating all summary reports currently covered by 40 CFR 123.45 and generate the new NNCR, reducing the reporting burden on states, tribes, and territories.
For more detailed information on the State Burden Reduction Initiative, please visit
EPA and the Department of Defense (DOD) wish to clarify how this rule will intersect with recent amendments to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as enacted in The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). Under NDAA, the Department of Defense (DOD) may designate “critical infrastructure security information” that can be withheld from release under FOIA (see 10 U.S.C. 130e). If DOD receives a FOIA request for information on NPDES-regulated federal facilities, it may designate particular data as critical infrastructure security information that is then withheld from public release in response to the FOIA request. NPDES program data designated as critical infrastructure security information in response to a FOIA request will also be withheld from public release under this rule. DOD will contact EPA and identify the specific data elements for specific NPDES-regulated entities that are to be withheld from public disclosure under a FOIA request because it has been designated as critical infrastructure security information.
EPA will not release information that has been designated as critical infrastructure security information in response to a FOIA request to the public. The critical infrastructure security information designation is expected to be used rarely for the type of information required to be electronically reported by this rule and any determination by DOD to withhold information from public release will be made at the data element level (see Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) for each DOD facility. Additionally, the DOD process for designating particular data as critical infrastructure security information (see DCN 0067) is prospective and does not affect data already publicly available (i.e., the DOD process will not be used to withdraw data that is already available to the public). In the instance where an NPDES program data element for a particular facility is designated as critical infrastructure security information in response to a FOIA request, a separate filtered set of data without the redacted information will be shared with the public; however, all NPDES program data will continue to be provided to EPA and the authorized state, tribe, or territorial NPDES program.
As indicated in the proposed rule, and subject to public comment, EPA is considering amendments to the current NPDES regulations to require electronic reporting by NPDES-regulated facilities for many of the existing NPDES reporting requirements, to require electronic reporting of NPDES information by the states, tribes, and territories to EPA, and to eliminate some existing reporting requirements, particularly those for states, tribes, and territories. Under this approach, in addition to the creation of a new 40 CFR part 127, the affected regulations would include:
• 40 CFR 122.22. Signatories to permit applications and reports;
• 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15), (c)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii). Stormwater discharges (applicable to State NPDES programs, see 40 CFR 123.25);
• 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2). General Permits (applicable to State NPDES programs, see 40 CFR 123.25);
• 40 CFR 122.34(g)(3). Reporting [as related to small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)];
• 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i). Monitoring reports [Discharge Monitoring Reports];
• 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6). Twenty-four hour reporting;
• 40 CFR 122.41(l)(7). Other noncompliance;
• 40 CFR 122.41(m)(3). Notice [as related to Bypass];
• 40 CFR 122.42(c). Municipal separate storm sewer systems [as related to medium or large systems];
• 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4). Annual reporting requirements for CAFOs;
• 40 CFR 122.43. Establishing permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs, see 40 CFR 123.25);
• 40 CFR 122.44(i). Monitoring requirements;
• 40 CFR 122.48(c). Requirements for recording and reporting of monitoring results (applicable to State NPDES programs, see 40 CFR 123.25);
• 40 CFR 122.63(f). Minor modifications of permits.
• 40 CFR 122.64(c) Termination of permits (applicable to State NPDES programs, see 40 CFR 123.25);
• 40 CFR 123.22. Program description.
• 40 CFR 123.24(b)(3). Memorandum of Agreement with the Regional Administrator;
• 40 CFR 123.25(a). Requirements for permitting;
• 40 CFR 123.26. Requirements for compliance evaluation programs;
• 40 CFR 123.41(a). Sharing of information;
• 40 CFR 123.43(d). State data-transmission of information from states to EPA;
• 40 CFR 123.45. Noncompliance and program reporting by the Director;
• 40 CFR 403.10(f). State Pretreatment Program requirements;
• 40 CFR 403.12(e). Periodic reports on continued compliance [Pretreatment program reports for Categorical Industrial Users];
• 40 CFR 403.12(h). Reporting requirements for Industrial Users not subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards [Pretreatment program reports for Significant Industrial Users not subject to EPA categorical pretreatment standards];
• 40 CFR 403.12(i). Annual POTW reports [Pretreatment program report];
• 40 CFR 501.21. Program Reporting to EPA (State Sludge Management Program);
• 40 CFR 503.18. Reporting [Biosolids annual program report for land application];
• 40 CFR 503.28. Reporting [Biosolids annual program report for surface disposal];
• 40 CFR 503.48. Reporting [Biosolids annual program report for incineration].
From FY 2002 through FY 2007, EPA and the states worked to identify the data needed for permitting authorities to successfully implement and manage the NPDES program. Various iterations of critical data elements were discussed by the state and EPA members of the PCS Steering Committee, the PCS Modernization Executive Council, and the Expanded PCS Steering Committee, which added representatives from the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) and the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA).
After receipt of numerous comments on the draft ICIS–NPDES Policy Statement from the states, EPA began to develop a federal regulation that would require electronic reporting of specific NPDES information from the regulated permittees, states, tribes, and territories. In 2010, EPA initiated an effort to carefully review the data needs and uses (as described in Section III), identify the types of information and specific data elements that would allow EPA to meet those needs and uses, and evaluate whether the information should be sought directly from NPDES-regulated facilities or from states, tribes, and territories. This was done with full acknowledgement that for certain activities (such as permit issuance, inspections, compliance determinations, and issuance of enforcement actions), the states, tribes, and territories are the unique source of the identified NPDES information.
During summer 2010, EPA conducted a series of concurrent technical analyses of various data types and facility types which examined the feasibility of electronic reporting, the existing regulatory data and reporting requirements, key considerations, and preliminary information regarding costs and benefits (see DCN 0018, 0019, 0020, 0021, 0022).
EPA then conducted extensive examinations of the data elements list. The result of these efforts is this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, and the list of minimum set of federal NPDES data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). EPA invites comment on the data identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127.
EPA has identified several data groups of NPDES information based on the source of the information. These “NPDES Data Groups” are defined and listed in 40 CFR 127.2(c) and in Table 1 to Appendix A of 40 CFR part 127. As defined in 40 CFR 127.2(c), the term NPDES data group means the group of related data elements identified in Table 1 in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. These NPDES data groups have similar regulatory reporting requirements and have similar data sources. The proposed rule uses the NPDES Data Groups to identify the minimum set of data elements for each type of NPDES reporting (
Based on EPA's national program management needs, the approach taken by EPA in the proposed rule, as currently drafted, identifies a variety of NPDES data that permittees would be required to provide electronically to states or EPA and that states, tribes, and territories would be required to submit to EPA on a regular basis. These data are supported by existing collection requirements and are essential to successfully manage, implement, and enforce the NPDES program. EPA notes that other required data submissions that are not proposed to be collected electronically (
A large number (over 60 percent) of these required NPDES data are specific to particular NPDES subprograms (
A number of other considerations associated with these required data are described below.
The frequency at which data would be required to be reported electronically is a key consideration in estimating workload or burden estimates of data entry. In this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, the required data entry frequency would vary considerably based upon the data type.
Data that has already been entered into PCS or ICIS–NPDES would not need to be re-entered by EPA, states, tribes, or territories unless that data has changed. NPDES information has been migrated from PCS to ICIS–NPDES for all states as of December 2012.
Under the approach described in the proposed rule, states, tribes, and territories would still need to update or change particular facility or permit information as permits are modified or
The required data entry frequency for inspection-related information would be linked directly to the inspection. The inspection frequency itself may vary considerably depending on the type of inspection and the type of facility. For example, major NPDES-regulated facilities might be inspected every two years, whereas nonmajor NPDES-regulated facilities might be inspected once every five years. Under the approach described in the proposed rule, information related to inspections, violations, and enforcement actions, would be entered after those events occur.
Electronic submissions of NPDES data (
Conditionally-required NPDES data must be reported when certain rare circumstances occur. For example, as currently drafted, this proposed rule requires POTWs to report in their Pretreatment Program Annual Report [see 40 CFR 403.12(i)] information regarding their administration of pollutant removal credits. In practice, POTWs would rarely be required to report these data as there are only four POTWs nationwide that have removal credits authority, as of October 1, 2011.
NPDES data entry/availability requirements specified in this proposed rule would not apply to those particular portions of a state, tribal, or territorial program which are broader in scope than the minimum requirements of the approved NPDES program. States, tribes, and territories are welcome to track these additional aspects, but this proposed rule does not require that such additional information be reported to EPA. Under the proposed rule, state, tribal, and territory programs have the option to use EPA's data collection tools, which would be capable of both collecting data that are in addition to the minimum set of federal NPDES data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) and passing these data to state, tribal, and territory NPDES data systems.
As previously noted, under the approach described in this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, EPA, states, tribes, and territories would submit the minimum set of federally-required NPDES data (see Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). Having this minimum set of federally-required NPDES data would ensure that the appropriate linkages are made between the data for permitting, compliance monitoring, violations, and enforcement actions within EPA's NPDES information system. For example, an inspection would be linked to all violations identified during the inspection, which in turn would be linked to any resulting enforcement action, penalty, or enforcement compliance schedule. Such linkages would ensure that the compliance status of the facility would show whether the violations have been addressed and resolved. In another situation, it would also be possible to link the information in EPA's NPDES data system for an unpermitted facility that subsequently becomes an NPDES permittee (
In PCS, some of the designated Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) data applied to every facility regardless of whether the NPDES permittee was a major or nonmajor facility. Other WENDB data elements in PCS only applied to major NPDES-regulated facilities (see DCN 0023). For the purposes of this proposed rule, few distinctions would be made in data entry requirements between major and nonmajor NPDES facilities (
The NPDES information described in the proposed rule would generally not be required for facilities without NPDES permits, with the following exceptions:
• Unpermitted facilities that have been subject to a formal enforcement action, an administrative penalty order, or an informal enforcement action (if such informal action addressed significant noncompliance);
• Unpermitted facilities that have been inspected; and
• Industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs.
For the first two types of exceptions identified above, EPA, authorized states, tribes, and territories would be expected to electronically provide the following information: basic facility information; inspection-related information; and, if applicable, violations, and information regarding enforcement actions. For the first two exceptions, there would not be any expectation for data to be submitted to EPA regarding narrative permit conditions, permitted features, permit limit sets, permit limits, DMRs, or program reports.
Facilities included in the third exception would be operating under a control mechanism, which may or may not be a permit (see 40 CFR 403.8). These indirect discharging facilities would also electronically submit to EPA, authorized states, tribes, or territories their bi-annual compliance reports, which are similar to DMRs for direct dischargers. Authorized states, tribes, and territories would be expected to provide to EPA the following information for these indirect dischargers: basic facility information, basic permit or control mechanism information (the latter would apply to industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs) (possibly including, if applicable, information regarding permit issuance, narrative conditions, limits, limit sets, permitted features, etc.), inspection-related information, and violations and information regarding enforcement actions, if applicable.
Due primarily to an increased focus on the various NPDES subprograms (e.g., CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, sewer overflow event reports, MS4 program reports), the required data set as defined by this proposed rule, as currently drafted, is more comprehensive than what was previously identified as WENDB. For inspections and enforcement actions that occur prior to the effective date of this rulemaking, the proposed rule does not require states or permittees to submit the data not covered by WENDB in the minimum set of federal NPDES data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) However, under the approach described in the proposed rule, EPA is considering requiring states, tribes, and territories to
As described in Section IV.B, EPA has spent considerable time and effort in analyzing the data needs and uses of information, the types of data that would meet those needs and uses, and the technical, legal, and economic considerations associated with obtaining that information. Based on these efforts, EPA solicits comment on the following NPDES data types for electronic submission from NPDES-regulated facilities or other regulated entities:
• Self-monitoring information as reported on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for major and nonmajor facilities (including subprograms as appropriate), and similar self-monitoring pretreatment-related information submitted by industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs;
• General permit reports [Notice of Intent (NOI) to discharge; Notice of Termination (NOT); No Exposure Certification (NEC); and Low Erosivity Waiver (LEW)], which are required for initial permit coverage, permit coverage termination, or consideration for permit exclusion.
• Annual reports from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs);
• Sewer overflow or bypass event reports for POTWs with combined sewer overflow (CSO), sanitary sewer overflow (SSO), or bypass events;
• Annual or more frequent pretreatment reports from facilities with approved local pretreatment programs;
• Annual reports from NPDES-regulated biosolids generators and handlers; and
• Program reports (annual or less frequent reports as may be indicated by the permit) from municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permittees.
Existing federal regulations already require each of these reports to be submitted to the permitting authority. Currently, most of these compliance reports are submitted on paper. EPA is soliciting comment on switching the submission of these reports from paper reporting to electronic reporting. Each of the data types associated with these reports is described in more detail in Section IV.
EPA notes that some NPDES permits require additional reports from NPDES-regulated entities than the reports identified in the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 127) (
EPA is soliciting comment on the minimum set of NPDES program data that NPDES-regulated facilities or other regulated entities would electronically submit to their authorized programs and the process for the authorized programs receiving these electronic data to forward these data electronically to EPA. The minimum set of NPDES program data is provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. This proposed rule does not expand the reportable data from NPDES-regulated facilities or other regulated entities beyond what is required by existing regulations.
EPA is soliciting comment on the minimum set of data to be reported electronically to ensure that there is consistent and complete reporting nationwide, and to expedite the collection and processing of the data, thereby making it more timely, accurate, and complete. EPA notes that authorized states, tribes, and territories may also require permittees to submit additional data electronically (data in addition to the minimum set of data provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). EPA's electronic reporting tools would be flexible to allow the collection and transfer of these additional data to authorized NPDES programs. This is consistent with EPA's requirements for approving NPDES program authorizations, in which state forms need to collect at least the same basic information as the forms used by EPA (
Taken together, electronically reporting the information described above would save the states, tribes, and territories considerable resources, make reporting easier for permittees, make it easier for the states and EPA to exchange data with each other and to provide it to the public, and enable better environmental decision-making.
EPA's regulations require reporting of samples and measurements taken for the purpose of compliance monitoring at intervals specified in the NPDES permit [40 CFR 122.41(j) and (l)(4)]. When self-monitoring results are reported to the permitting authority, they are compared with current permit limits and any existing enforcement orders to determine facility compliance. The sample collection and analytical results required by the NPDES permit must be reported to the permitting authority through the submission of Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i)]. It is extremely important that the data reported on the DMR is timely, accurate, complete, and legible to ensure that the facility's compliance status is correctly reflected; electronic reporting will likely improve each of these qualities.
As of October 1, 2011, there are approximately 63,000 facilities submitting DMRs to their permitting authorities; the majority of these are individually-permitted facilities that directly discharge to surface waters. The universe of NPDES-regulated facilities has grown since the passage of the Clean Water Act and some facilities in these new sectors (
The DMR submission process that is most frequently used requires the permittee to mail a hard-copy form of a pre-printed form (OMB Control No. 2040–0004) to the authorized NPDES permitting authority. After receiving the hard copy version of the DMR, the authorized NPDES permitting authority enters this data into an electronic database (ICIS-NPDES or state database system). When a state, tribe, or territory applies for and obtains the authority to implement the NPDES permitting and enforcement program, the state, tribe, or territory is required to have a system for evaluating all DMRs [40 CFR 123.26(e)].
The permittee is responsible for understanding and meeting all permit requirements and submitting timely, accurate, complete, and legible self-monitoring data in accordance with the CWA and its implementing regulations. The sample collection and analytical results required by the NPDES permit must also be reported to the permitting authority through the submission of DMRs at the frequency specified in the permit [see 40 CFR 122.41(j) and (l)(4)]. DMRs must be signed and submitted to the permitting authority by the date specified in the permit [40 CFR 122.41(k) and (l)(4)]. All facilities must submit DMRs at least annually [40 CFR 122.44(i)(2)], at the frequency specified in the permit.
EPA's PCS Policy Statement (as amended) created the expectation that the permitting authority enter facility information for all permitted facilities and DMR information from major facilities into ICIS-NPDES. About half of NPDES-authorized states also transmit DMR data for nonmajor facilities to ICIS-NPDES. EPA also notes that some NPDES permits require the electronic reporting of baseline monitoring data on DMR forms [
• Collecting paper-based DMR forms, manually entering the information into the state, tribe, or territory database, and entering the expected federal data into ICIS-NPDES either on the web or through Batch eXtensible Markup Language (XML) files.
• Developing and using a customized state, tribe, or territory electronic DMR (eDMR) tool that allows regulated entities to enter and electronically submit DMR data into a web-based application. The DMR data is then sent to the state, tribe, or territory database and the state, tribe, or territory is responsible for entering the expected federal data into ICIS-NPDES either on the web or through Batch XML files.
• Sending data directly from the regulated entity to ICIS-NPDES through a customized installation of NetDMR, which is the federal eDMR tool.
• Allowing regulated entities to enter data into the National Installation of NetDMR.
Because there is a significant burden on states, tribes, or territories associated with manually entering DMR data into a data system, some states, tribes, or territories found that they were not able to meet their regulatory requirement [see 40 CFR 123.26(e)] to evaluate all DMR data for violations (see 2008 and 2009 Clean Water Act Annual Noncompliance Reports, DCN 0016 and 0025) or meet EPA's ICIS-NPDES data entry policy expectations (see DCN 0026). As documented in the Agency's 2008 Annual Noncompliance Reports, eight states reported reviewing less than 50 percent of their nonmajor facilities for noncompliance (see DCN 0016). The lack of an automated, searchable NPDES data tracking system for each authorized state, tribe, or territory contributes to this gap in compliance oversight and environmental protection.
To address such problems, 34 states (as of October 1, 2011) have or are planning to use electronic reporting tools where the permittee transfers DMR data over the internet into state or Federal databases. These tools include NetDMR, EPA's current eDMR tool, which was released in June 2009. NetDMR allows NPDES-regulated facilities to enter and electronically submit DMR data through EPA's CDX to ICIS-NPDES as an alternative to the paper-based DMR submission process. NetDMR and other comparable state, tribe, or territory tools essentially reproduce the pre-printed DMR in electronic format. Some of these tools allow for a properly formatted file [
The adoption rate, or percent of permittees that use electronic reporting, in the states where electronic reporting of DMRs is an option as of October 1, 2011, is generally less than half. EPA believes this is because electronic reporting is not required, and/or release of electronic reporting tools is relatively recent (see DCN 0027). However, as described in more detail in Section III.B.1, Ohio is an example of a state that has been able to achieve close to 100 percent of electronic reporting of DMRs by implementing a phased approach for requiring permittees to use the eDMR system and by providing comprehensive training. EPA believes the Ohio experience validates the position that national electronic reporting of DMRs is feasible.
EPA is soliciting comment on having NPDES-regulated facilities electronically submit DMRs in accordance with the proposed 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4), which would reference the need for these submissions to be compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. Some permitting authorities may require baseline monitoring discharge data to also be reported on DMR forms. The data elements specific to DMRs are listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i) to include electronic reporting requirements.
EPA intends to expand the current NetDMR system and encourage the expansion of state, tribe, and territory eDMR systems to include DMRs for the existing and anticipated NPDES-regulated community. To support the requirements under the proposed rule, EPA will expand NetDMR by the effective date of this rule to include all facilities that report DMRs and to add functionality, streamline overlapping system functionality, and provide a more robust platform for permitting authorities to manage and submit DMR data, including the addition of state-specific data that is not listed in the minimum set of federal data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127).
EPA is also exploring the development of an “open platform” option that would allow NPDES-regulated facilities to use third-party software for electronically submitting NPDES program data (
EPA and authorized states, tribes, and territories issue general permits to cover multiple similar facilities under a single permit. Where a large number of similar facilities require permits, a general permit allows the permitting authority to allocate resources in a more efficient manner and provide more timely permit coverage than would occur if individual permits had to be issued to each similar facility. States, tribes, and territories must seek EPA approval to administer general permits.
General permits typically share common elements:
• Sources that involve the same or substantially similar types of operations;
• Sources that discharge the same types of wastes or engage in the same types of sludge use or disposal;
• Sources that require the same effluent limitations or operating conditions, or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal; or
• Sources that require the same monitoring where tiered conditions may be used for minor differences within a class (
The regulations at 40 CFR 122.28(a)(1) provide for general permits to cover dischargers within an area corresponding to specific geographic or political boundaries such as the following:
• Designated planning area;
• Sewer district; and
• City, county, or state boundary.
The process for developing and issuing NPDES general permits is similar to the process for individual permits; however, there are some differences in the sequence of events. For general permits, the permitting authority first identifies the need for a general permit and collects data that demonstrate that a group or category of dischargers has similarities that warrant a general permit. In deciding whether to develop a general permit, permitting authorities consider whether:
• A large number of facilities will be covered;
• The facilities have similar production processes or activities;
• The facilities generate similar pollutants; and
• Whether uniform water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) (where necessary) will appropriately implement water quality standards.
The remaining steps of the general permit process are the same as for individual permits. The permitting authority develops a draft permit that includes effluent limitations (if applicable), monitoring conditions, special conditions, and standard conditions. The permitting authority then issues a public notice and addresses public comments, coordinates with EPA as appropriate in the review process, completes a CWA section 401 certification process, develops the administrative record, and issues the final permit. The final permit will also establish the requirements for the specific information that must be submitted by a facility that wishes to be covered under the general permit.
After the final general permit has been issued, there are several general permit reports that facilities must submit to their permitting authority, including:
• Notice of Intent (NOI) to discharge: This is the initial submission seeking coverage under a general permit [40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i) and (ii)];
• Notice of Termination (NOT): A request by the permittee to terminate their coverage under an existing permit (40 CFR 124.5);
• No Exposure Certification (NEC): A certification from a facility indicating that coverage under an existing stormwater general permit is not necessary due to certain facility-specific conditions [40 CFR 122.26(g)(1) and (4)]; and
• Low Erosivity Waiver (LEW): A certification from a facility indicating that coverage under an existing construction stormwater general permit is not necessary due to certain facility-specific or climate conditions [40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)].
It is important to note that EPA general permit regulations (40 CFR 122.28) do not require all general permit covered facilities to submit NOIs for all general permits issued by EPA and authorized state NPDES programs. Some general permits provide for automatic coverage.
This means that neither EPA nor the authorized state, tribe, or territory programs will have information regarding exactly which facilities are regulated under these general permits. General permits cover a wide range of facility types that range from the very large (
Finally, EPA
In general, there is significantly less data in ICIS–NPDES on facilities covered by general permits than facilities regulated under individual permits due to reduced state reporting requirements for non-major facilities. Most facilities covered by general permits are classified as non-majors. States, tribes, territories, and EPA regions are required to enter data concerning the general permit and some limited data regarding general permit covered facilities. Limited data on general permit covered facilities impedes an accurate assessment of this part of the NPDES program. .
In particular, there are significantly less DMR data and linkages to receiving waters for these facilities as compared to facilities controlled by individual permits. EPA estimates that approximately 90 percent of general permit covered facilities regulated by a non-stormwater general permit are required to submit DMRs. However, most of the general permit covered facilities are nonmajors and their DMR data is not yet incorporated into ICIS–NPDES. This lack of data significantly inhibits public transparency on discharge data and compliance with permit effluent limits, as roughly 95 percent of all NPDES-regulated entities are covered by general permits.
EPA is soliciting comment on having facilities electronically submit NOIs and NOTs for permit coverage or requesting the termination of permit coverage in accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(i) and (ii), 122.41(l), 122.26(b)(15) and (g)(4), and 124.5, which are proposed to be updated to reference the need for these submissions to comply with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. Similarly, as required, NECs and LEWs are to be completed and submitted electronically by the facility in accordance with 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15) and (g)(4), which references the need for these submissions to comply with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. The data elements specific to these general permit reports are listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127.
In addition to notifying the permitting authority of a facility's desire to obtain, waive, or terminate permit coverage, the general permit reports submitted by facilities also provide EPA, the state, tribe, or territory with data about the facility and its operations. These data include: information identifying the facility; a description of the facility's processes, wastewater volumes, and pollutant characteristics; discharge point locations, including the name of the receiving water body; projected start and end dates of permit coverage; effects of discharge on threatened or endangered species; certification statements; and other site-specific data. Although each general permit can impose slightly different reporting requirements, the process is consistent and may include some of the following types of data:
• Facility information (
• Permit information (
• Certain information for cooling water intake structures and thermal variances where applicable (
• Report information associated with NOTs, NECs, and LEWs;
• Biosolids information, where applicable (
• CAFO information, where applicable (
• Stormwater discharge information, where applicable (
• CSO information, where applicable (
• Pretreatment information, where applicable (
• POTW information, where applicable (
EPA is soliciting comment on a minimum set of data (see Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) be submitted electronically to ensure consistent and complete reporting nationwide and to expedite the collection and processing of the data, thereby making it more timely, accurate, complete, and available to the public. EPA estimates that the electronic submission of these general permit reports will save the states, tribes, and territories considerable resources, make reporting easier for NPDES-regulated entities, streamline permit renewals (as permit writers typically review previous noncompliance events during permit renewal), ensure full exchange of NPDES general permit data between states, tribes, territories, and EPA to the public, and improve environmental decision-making. The standard minimum data elements are provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. This proposed rule does not expand the reporting requirements for permittees beyond what is required by existing regulations.
In most cases, a business or facility will only be required to submit such forms once during each permit cycle. Most of these general permit reports are currently being received by the states, tribes, territories, or EPA in hard-copy form (
During the implementation period, EPA will address variations in the four general permit reports (e.g., NOIs, NOTs, LEWs, NECs) across the different authorized NPDES programs. EPA's goal is to implement a general permit reporting system that can capture general permits data nationally. For example, EPA currently operates an electronic reporting system for NOIs and a Vessels One Time Report supporting four EPA-issued general permits: Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)
All state, tribe, and territory MSGPs and CGPs should be collecting similar data, but some states, tribes, and territories might be collecting additional data elements for their own needs. For these general permits, EPA believes a reporting tool based on the federal MSGP and CGP, which includes a number of definable data fields can accommodate the full range of state, tribe, or territory variability. In essence, the reporting tool could merge the EPA data fields with other definable fields to produce a “customized” general permit reporting tool specifically for use by permittees within that state, tribe, or territory. EPA anticipates a certain amount of data commonality that will help limit the number of truly unique fields on reporting forms.
Several factors could reduce the number of unique reporting tools that would be needed. First, substantial portions of all general permits are quite similar–such as the data identifying the facility and its owners and operators. In addition, many of the general permit types would be tracked by multiple states, tribes, or territories and may be similar due to common permittee operations, discharges, or monitoring. Several states, tribes, or territories have either developed general permits for specific industries, or have developed a more generic general permit that includes an industry as a subset under a broader category. Where common general permit data are identified across states, tribes, and territories, a limited number of industry-specific templates, each of which includes a limited number of definable fields, might be able to accommodate the full range of variability among non-EPA issued general permits. EPA solicits comment on how to best address the variability of general permits issued by EPA, states, tribes, and territories. There are a number of scenarios as states, tribes, and territories move toward the electronic submission of general permit reports.
• Permits Covered by State, Tribal, and Territory General Permit Electronic Reporting Tools—As of October 1, 2011, approximately 15 states use an electronic reporting tool for NOIs for at least some of their permit types (see DCN 0027). EPA expects these states to continue using their existing NOI electronic reporting tools. EPA will review these tools to determine if they comply with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127 (see 40 CFR 127.27). States, tribes, and territories will also be required to share with EPA the minimum set of federal data (Appendix A to CFR part 127). EPA will provide the states, tribes, and territories with information on how to provide the data to EPA's CDX node on the Exchange Network, which will provide the data to ICIS–NPDES.
• States, Tribes, and Territories Opting to Use EPA's General Permit Report System- Some states, tribes, and territories do not have an electronic reporting system for general permit reports and would prefer not to develop one. States, tribes, and territories have the option to adopt EPA's electronic reporting tool for general permit reports. EPA's electronic reporting tool would allow users to enter their general permit report data into a fillable PDF electronic form and then electronically sign and submit the form to the authorized NPDES program. The appropriate authorized NPDES program will approve or deny the form, and approved forms would be sent to ICIS–NPDES by the tool through CDX. EPA's electronic reporting tool for general permit reports will also offer users the capability of sending the approved general permit data to a particular state, tribe, and territory NPDES data system.
When a state, tribe, or territory notifies EPA that they intend to use EPA's tools to allow their permittees to electronically submit general permit reports, the EPA system administrator will set up a general permit report workspace within the federal tool for use by EPA regions and authorized state, tribe, or territory programs. After that workspace has been set up, the tool will solicit essential general permit data and monitoring requirements from ICIS–NPDES via CDX to populate electronic forms. EPA regions and authorized state, tribe, or territory programs will also have the capability of creating new general permits in the new federal tool. These forms would be accessible to facilities through the workspace. An authorized NPDES program administrator would be responsible for approving general permit reports from users, establishing the limit monitoring requirements for an approved NOI, and submitting the data to ICIS–NPDES.
The authorized NPDES program user would be responsible for confirming that ICIS–NPDES has processed the data and would either communicate errors back to the facility user or generate a confirmation letter for the facility user along with a permit identifier that has been assigned by ICIS–NPDES. The new federal tool will provide an easy means for the authorized NPDES program to manage these general permit data without requiring direct access to ICIS–NPDES.
As noted in the implementation section (see Section IV.K), facilities seeking coverage, waiver, or termination from a general permit would be required to submit the information required by this rule electronically. If the general permit does not require electronic reporting, then these facilities would be required to submit paper copy general permit reports to their permitting authority for approval and (unless the permitting authority is EPA) also report electronically to EPA under Sections 304(i) and 308 of the Clean Water Act. If that general permit requires electronic reporting, it must be compliant with 40 CFR part 3 (CROMERR) and 40 CFR part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule), including submission to the appropriate initial recipient, as identified by EPA, and as described in Section IV.I.
Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are animal feeding operations where animals are kept and raised in confinement, as defined at 40 CFR 122.23(b)(2), and that meet certain regulatory criteria or are designated by the permitting authority or Regional Administrator. In the absence of facility-specific data, EPA's Office of Water estimates there are approximately 14,400 large or medium CAFOs nationwide. The Office of Water estimates that of this universe, approximately 8,300 CAFOs have NPDES permits. Of the remaining large and medium CAFOs, it is unknown how many of them discharge and need permit coverage (see DCN 0029). Failure to properly manage manure, litter, and process wastewater at CAFOs can negatively impact the environment and public health. Discharges of manure and wastewater from CAFOs have the potential to contribute pollutants such as nitrogen, phosphorus, organic matter, sediments, pathogens, heavy metals, hormones, and ammonia to surface waters.
Under the existing NPDES regulations, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.23(d)(1), every CAFO that discharges must apply for either an individual NPDES permit or seek coverage under a general permit, if available. NPDES-permitted CAFOs are required to submit an annual report to the State Director or Regional Administrator pursuant to 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4). The annual report must include: (1) The number and type of animals, whether in open confinement or housed under roof; (2) estimated amount of total manure, litter, and process wastewater generated by the CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons or gallons); (3) estimated amount of total manure, litter, and process wastewater transferred to other persons by the CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons or gallons); (4) total number of acres for land application covered by the CAFO's nutrient management plan; (5) total number of acres under control of the CAFO that were used for land application of manure, litter, and process wastewater in the previous 12 months; (6) summary of all manure, litter, and process wastewater discharges from the production area that have occurred in the previous 12 months, including date, time, and approximate volume; (7) a statement indicating whether the current version of the CAFO's nutrient management plan was developed or approved by a certified nutrient management planner; and (8) specified supporting agricultural data and calculations including the actual crop(s) planted and actual yield(s) for each field, and the actual nitrogen and phosphorus content of the manure, litter, and process wastewater.
EPA is soliciting comment on requiring CAFO permitted facilities electronically submit CAFO annual reports in accordance with 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4), which references the need for these submissions to be compliant with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. The data elements specific to these annual reports are listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4) to include electronic reporting requirements.
The electronic submission of annual reports would help permitting authorities collect and process CAFO information more efficiently, and aid in the evaluation of the compliance status of NPDES-permitted CAFOs. Electronic annual reports would provide the data elements already required under 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4) in a more efficient and accessible form, allowing EPA, the states, tribes, territories, and the public to obtain updated information such as how many permitted CAFOs there are in the U.S., how many animals of each animal type are being raised at permitted CAFOs, how many permitted CAFOs have had discharges within the previous year, the type and amounts of manure generated by permitted CAFOs in the previous year, and the requirements and controls on these CAFOs.
Electronic reporting of CAFO annual reports will also improve compliance monitoring. EPA, states, tribes, and territories rely on the information contained in annual program reports to augment inspections and effectively monitor compliance. The electronic submittal of annual reports will supply basic information on permitted CAFOs as well as more detailed discharge information.
Finally, EPA is soliciting comment on eliminating the reporting of “time” of discharge from the annual report [see 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)(vi)]. EPA estimates that the reporting of the “date” of a discharge is sufficient for permitting and compliance determinations. EPA solicits comment on this proposed change.
EPA recognizes that electronic reporting could be impracticable for some CAFO facilities, particularly those that do not have broadband access to the internet. In general, electronic reporting tools require faster Internet connection speeds to work most effectively. Taking into account the limitations of broadband availability and technological capabilities, EPA is considering providing a temporary exception to the electronic reporting requirements for certain CAFO facilities or other facilities lacking broadband capability or high-speed Internet access and solicits comment on such an exception. See 40 CFR 127.15. In that section, EPA solicits comment on whether to allow such facilities to receive a temporary waiver from electronic reporting, and temporarily be required to submit their NPDES compliance information on paper-based forms.
This section of the preamble discusses CSOs and SSOs (together referred in this proposal as “sewer overflow events”), and wastewater treatment works bypasses. CSO discharges generally occur at known outfall locations and are covered by an NPDES permit. SSOs generally do not occur at designated locations, but can occur from various locations in the system (
Reporting requirements for sewer overflows and bypasses in NPDES permits are to be at least as stringent as specified in the “standard conditions” applicable to all NPDES permits [40 CFR 122.41(l), and (m)(3)] or the CSO Control Policy [59 FR 18688, April 19, 1994)] The following summarizes the current reporting requirements for sewer overflows and bypasses.
Combined Sewer Overflows
Under Section 402(q)(1) of the Clean Water Act, NPDES permits for combined sewer system discharges shall conform to EPA's 1994 CSO Control Policy.
The nine minimum controls are measures to reduce the prevalence and impacts of CSOs and include two information-related measures. Permittees are required to provide “public notification to ensure that the public receives adequate notification of CSO occurrences and CSO impacts,” and to conduct “monitoring to effectively characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO controls.” Development and implementation of the LTCPs entails the following, which include monitoring and reported activities:
• Characterizing, monitoring, and modeling of the combined sewer system (see CSO Control Policy Section II.C.1);
• Prohibiting new or significantly increased overflows to sensitive areas, which requires monitoring and
• Conducting an evaluation of CSO controls based on frequency, duration, volume, location, treatment, and compliance with water-quality standards (see CSO Control Policy Section II.C.4);
• Conducting a cost and performance analysis of the LTCP based on characterization, monitoring, and modeling data (see CSO Control Policy Section II.C.5);
• Maximizing treatment at the existing POTW treatment plant based on characterization, monitoring, and modeling data (see CSO Control Policy Section II.C.7); and
• Conducting a post-construction compliance monitoring program, according to a plan which details the monitoring protocols to be followed, such as the necessary effluent, ambient, and other water-quality monitoring, which must be approved by the NPDES authority (see CSO Control Policy Section II.C.9).
The characterization, monitoring, modeling, and reporting measures help the permittee and the NPDES permitting authority determine the appropriate controls to be implemented and the effectiveness of the controls selected in the LTCP in meeting CWA requirements and achieving applicable water quality standards. The NPDES permitting authority uses CSO monitoring and assessment data from the permittee in order to develop appropriate permit conditions and demonstrate compliance with the CSO Control Policy. NPDES permits must identify the CSO outfalls and permitted discharges. All discharges from these outfalls, whether dry or wet-weather discharges, are subject to reporting requirements under NPDES permits. CSO discharges from CSO permitted outfalls (dry or wet-weather) that constitute noncompliance are required to be reported under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7). CSO discharges from CSO permitted outfalls (wet-weather) that do not result in noncompliance can be reported on DMRs [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i)] at the frequency identified by the permit, and are subject to public notification requirements, one of the nine minimum measures under the CSO Control Policy. However, one of the nine minimum measures is to prohibit CSO discharges during dry weather. Therefore, EPA regulations require that these and other noncompliance events must be reported under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7).
Separate sanitary sewer systems, unlike combined sewer systems, are designed to carry only domestic sewage. SSOs are generally unplanned and can occur anywhere in a collection system, although generally they are due to excessive infiltration and inflow during and following wet weather events. SSOs, including those that do not reach waters of the United States, may be indicative of improper operation and maintenance of the sewer system and thus may violate NPDES permit conditions requiring proper operation and maintenance [40 CFR 122.41(e)]. These noncompliance events are required to be reported to the NPDES permitting authority in compliance with EPA's standard permit conditions [40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)]. POTWs must provide an oral report within 24 hours for any overflow event that “may endanger health or the environment” and follow-up the oral report with a “written submission” within 5 days of the permittee's discovery of the overflow event [see 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)]. All other overflows are required to be reported by the permittee with the next regularly scheduled monitoring report [40 CFR 122.41(l)(7)].
EPA regulations [40 CFR 122.41(m)] prohibit “bypassing” any portion of a treatment facility. If the permittee knows that a bypass will occur, it is required to submit notice to the permitting authority, if possible at least ten days in advance of anticipated bypass events [see 40 CFR 122.41(m)(3)(i)]. If a bypass is unanticipated, permittees must provide an oral report within 24 hours and follow-up the oral report with a “written submission” within 5 days of the permittee's discovery of the bypass event [see 40 CFR 122.41(m)(3)(ii) which references 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)]. Where a POTW has a combined sewer system, and the permit includes an approved anticipated bypass, the permit should specify monitoring and reporting related to the bypass. This proposed rule does not change the reporting requirements for bypass events related to non-POTW facilities (industrial facilities).
EPA is soliciting comment on requiring POTWs to report sewer overflow, sanitary sewer overflow, and bypass reports in compliance with permit conditions implementing 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4),(6), and (7), (m)(3), and CSO Control Policy would be required to be completed electronically. These data submissions would be subject to 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. The data for these reports would be based on current reporting requirements and listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7), and (m)(3)(i) to include electronic reporting requirements for sewer overflows and bypass events.
With respect to CSOs, this proposed language would only require electronic reporting for noncompliant combined sewer overflows. EPA is not proposing to require the electronic submission of LTCPs as these reports are unique to each POTW. EPA solicits comment on this approach. In addition, under section 402(q), permits issued to POTWs with combined sewer systems must require monitoring and reporting of wet-weather CSO events in accordance with the CSO Control Policy. As previously noted, wet weather CSO discharges that do not result in noncompliance can be reported on DMRs [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i)] at the frequency identified by the permit. EPA is soliciting comment on amending 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4) to require the same data that would be required to be reported under proposed section 122.41(l)(6) and Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 be reported electronically by such POTWs in their DMRs.
With respect to unanticipated bypasses, EPA is soliciting comment that the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(m)(3)(ii) would also be changed from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting as this section cross-references section 122.41(l)(6), which EPA is proposing to amend as above. This proposed rule would not change the reporting requirements for bypass events related to non-POTW facilities (industrial facilities).
The collection, management, analysis, and reporting of data from the sewer overflow and bypass reports, which have been identified for conversion from paper-based to electronic reporting under the proposed rule, would aid EPA oversight of state NPDES programs as well as provide the public with better access to this data. CSO, SSO, and bypass events are of special concern with respect to public health because they can expose the public to bacteria, viruses, intestinal parasites, and other microorganisms that can cause serious illness such as cholera, dysentery, hepatitis, cryptosporidiosis, and giardiasis. Precipitation and snowmelt entering combined and separate sanitary sewer systems may result in sewer overflow events, which in turn may be responsible for beach closings, swimming and fishing advisories, and habitat degradation. Sewer overflows contribute to 15 percent of impaired
As a result of this proposed rule, EPA, states, tribes, and territories would be able to better estimate the location, frequency, magnitude, and duration of sewer overflows, the environmental and public health impacts, and the potential causes. This sewer overflow data would provide the public with meaningful information on the number and frequency of sewer overflows in their communities. This data could also be used to prioritize decisions on how best to upgrade aging infrastructure and could be integrated with health warnings by local municipalities to protect public health.
EPA also solicits comment on whether these sewer overflow reports should be limited to sewer overflows at a threshold volume or include
POTWs receive wastewater from households (domestic waste), as well as from a wide variety of commercial and industrial facilities, referred to as industrial users (IUs). The types of IUs range widely, from small restaurants to hospitals to large and complex organic chemical manufacturers. EPA has further identified some IUs as categorical industrial users (CIUs),
The pretreatment program primarily focuses on controlling pollutants from IUs that: (1) Have the potential to cause the POTW to violate its NPDES permit discharge limits; (2) may pose a safety concern to the POTW or its workers; or (3) affect the POTW's sewage sludge disposal method. [See 40 CFR 403.3(i).] The pretreatment program also has several other equally important regulatory requirements and initiatives. First, the pretreatment program ensures implementation and compliance with the technology-based categorical pretreatment standards (see 40 CFR 403.6). Second, the pretreatment program contains regulatory provisions for preventing sewer blockages and collection system overflows due to fats, oils, and grease.
Through the pretreatment program regulations at 40 CFR part 403 and requirements within the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR part 122, EPA and approved state pretreatment programs directly oversee and regulate over 1,500 approved pretreatment programs. These approved pretreatment programs, in turn, oversee approximately 20,000 SIUs [see 40 CFR 403.8(f)]. The total number of SIUs is approximately three times the number of NPDES major dischargers.
The pretreatment program is considered a component of the NPDES program; however, in a larger sense, its regulatory framework is as comprehensive as the NPDES permit program itself. As with the NPDES permit program, EPA can authorize states to implement and enforce the NPDES pretreatment program. EPA has authorized pretreatment programs in 36 states as of October 1, 2011. The pretreatment program has additional complexity as authorized states, tribes, and territories (approval authorities) can further authorize pretreatment program authority to local governments. This complexity is reflected in the different types of compliance monitoring reporting, the associated report preparers and reviewers, and report timing.
EPA identified 23 different pretreatment program reports as candidates for electronic reporting; these reports are currently managed in hard-copy format between industrial users, control authorities, and approval authorities. See Table IV.2. In general, these reports fall into the following categories:
•
•
•
These reports are submitted in hard-copy format to local pretreatment programs, authorized states, tribes, territories, or EPA Regions. Key data from these reports are not generally standardized, publicly available, or shared because these data are mostly in hard-copy format and reported in different forms.
Currently, authorized states, tribes, territories, or EPA Regions enter or otherwise transfer basic POTW data (
In the absence of approved local pretreatment programs, EPA, state, tribe, or territory functions as the control authority with the direct responsibility of overseeing these industrial users. EPA estimates that there are approximately 1,400 industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs. Failure to track and enforce compliance of IUs for which states, tribes, territories, or EPA are the control authority was cited as a weakness by EPA's Office of Inspector General (see DCN 0032). Some states and EPA Regions acting as control authorities have entered some information regarding industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs, but such data is very limited in the national NPDES data systems.
There are also inconsistencies in data entry between the state, tribe, territory, and Regional pretreatment programs. EPA recently reviewed pretreatment data in PCS and ICIS–NPDES and
EPA solicits comment on having certain pretreatment program reports submitted electronically in accordance with 40 CFR 403.12(e), (h), and (i), which references the need for these submissions to be compliant with 40 CFR part 3, part 127, and 403.12(l). The data elements for these reports are listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA notes that these reporting requirements do not apply to facilities
EPA reviewed all pretreatment reports in Table IV.2 as potential candidates for electronic reporting. EPA evaluated the feasibility and necessity of converting paper-based pretreatment program reports to electronic reports against the following factors: (1) The ability to standardize a pretreatment report; (2) the frequency of the pretreatment report; (3) the need to collect and manage data from the pretreatment report on a national basis for measuring programmatic and compliance activities; and (4) what summary data from various paper-based reports could be combined into another existing reporting requirement. EPA proposes that reports that are not identified for electronic reporting in this proposed rulemaking would remain as paper-based reporting requirements unless future regulations are implemented. Additionally, the pretreatment program reports that are not identified for electronic reporting in this proposed rulemaking may still be good candidates for being managed as electronic documents (
Using the criteria described above, EPA identified the Annual POTW Report [40 CFR 403.12 (i)], as a pretreatment report that could be converted from a paper-based report to an electronic submission compliant with 40 CFR part 3, part 127, and 403.12(l). In developing this proposal, EPA noted that summary data (
• 40 CFR 403.7 Removal credits;
• 40 CFR 403.12(f) Notice of potential problems including slug loadings;
• 40 CFR 403.12(j) Notice of change in Industrial User discharge;
• 40 CFR 403.12(p) Hazardous waste notification and BMP certification;
• 40 CFR 403.12(q) Annual certification by Non-significant CIUs;
• 40 CFR 122.42(b) POTW disclosure requirements to NPDES Director;
• 40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) POTW identification of industrial users;
• 40 CFR 403.16 Upset notification; and
• 40 CFR 403.17 Bypass notification.
The data elements that comprise the Annual POTW Report are provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 403.12(i) to include electronic reporting requirements.
Using the criteria cited previously, EPA also identified that the following industrial user reports could be collected electronically for SIUs and CIUs in cities without approved pretreatment programs(EPA notes that SIUs and CIUs in cities
• 40 CFR 403.12(e) Periodic reports on continued compliance for CIUs; and
• 40 CFR 403.12(h) Periodic reports on continued compliance for Non-CIUs.
This will facilitate tracking and enforcing compliance of SIUs and CIUs for which states, tribes, territories, and EPA are the control authorities. Standardizing and electronically collecting these reports will help address deficiencies in EPA's National Pretreatment Program that were identified by EPA's Office of Inspector General (see DCN 0032). The data elements that comprise these industrial users reports in cities without approved pretreatment programs are provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 and in the rulemaking record (see DCN 0022). EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h) to include electronic reporting requirements. EPA is not proposing to require electronic reporting from IUs that are not SIUs or CIUs as these facilities discharge smaller volumes of process wastewater and the number of IUs far exceeds the number of SIUs and CIUs. EPA solicits comment on whether it should require electronic reporting from IUs that are not SIUs or CIUs located in cities where EPA, the state, tribe, or territory is the control authority.
EPA solicits comment on making changes to 40 CFR 403.10 to require approved state, tribe, or territory pretreatment programs to incorporate the electronic reporting changes and submit their programs to EPA for review and approval. This state, tribe, or territory submission must require that the approval authority regularly notify each control authority that it must electronically submit its annual report in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, part 127, and 403.12(l) (including the requirement for the control authority to identify the initial recipient for electronic submissions). EPA considers these state tribe, territory, and local pretreatment program submissions to be a non-substantial modification, which means that the approval authority has 45 days to either approve or disapprove the modification. Where the approval authority does not notify the POTW within 45 days of its decision to approve or disapprove the modification or to treat the modification as substantial, the POTW may implement the modification as if it were approved by the Approval Authority. The proposed rule would make changes to 40 CFR 403.10(f)(2) to add the following language: Regularly notify all Control Authorities of electronic submission requirements of 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127.
Due to the extensive number of entities either implementing or regulated under the National Pretreatment Program—approximately 1,600 approved pretreatment programs nationwide oversee approximately 20,000 SIUs—EPA is not proposing to convert paper-based reports between all
Wastewater treatment necessarily produces the end products effluent, sewage sludge, methane and other gases for energy, and water for reuse. Sewage and wastewater generated in homes, businesses, industries, and other venues that are conveyed to wastewater treatment plants are treated to allow effluent discharges or beneficial uses. The National Research Council has identified that compliance with EPA standards can promote the effective treatment and safe return of sewage sludge to the environment (see DCN 0034). Sewage sludge treatment usually involves a variety of processes and factors (
Based upon the 2008 Clean Watershed Needs Survey (CWNS) Report to Congress, there are now 14,780 POTWs, which would represent an updated universe of sewage sludge (biosolids) generators. Note that the same 2008 CWNS Report (updated with more accurate data from the states) to Congress indicates that the 14,780 POTWs annually serve 73.7 percent of the U.S. population (226,302,213) and treat over 32 billion gallons of wastewater. Biosolids incinerators and septage removed from the numerous onsite/decentralized treatment systems are also covered by the 40 CFR part 503 requirements.
In almost equal amounts, these biosolids are either beneficially re-used or disposed (
Section 405 of the CWA sets the statutory framework for regulating sewage sludge (biosolids). EPA has established a protective regulatory framework to manage the use and disposal of biosolids at 40 CFR part 503. Part 503 is a “self implementing” rule, which means that entities producing biosolids are regulated whether or not these requirements are included in a permit. Depending on use or disposal practice, EPA's sewage sludge regulations require monitoring and control of up to 10 metals and pathogen indicators.
Limited biosolids data can be found in national databases such as ICIS–NPDES or the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). More detailed information on monitoring and biosolids management is provided in annual reports submitted by Class I sewage sludge management facilities, POTWs with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one million gallons per day, and POTWs that serve 10,000 people or more. Class I sewage sludge management facilities are facilities that have an approved pretreatment program or are in one of the five states that have assumed direct pretreatment responsibilities under 40 CFR 403.10(e). EPA and authorized states, tribes, and territories can also identify other sewage sludge management facilities as Class I facilities because of the potential for their sewage sludge use or disposal practices to affect public health and the environment adversely.
The vast majority of biosolids annual reports are submitted in hard-copy format to EPA's regional offices. These reports document the measures taken to protect human health and watersheds from the mismanagement of biosolids. Key data from these reports are not generally standardized, publicly available, or shared because these data are mostly in hard-copy format and are reported in different forms. The following quote provides a good example of the effort required to complete a one-time assessment of the biosolids program, which mostly relies upon non-standardized hard-copy reports: “Consistent data on biosolids management is difficult to obtain and compile . . . With no centralized data collection and storage system yet in place, disparate pieces of data from various states and EPA regions must be painstakingly collected and interpreted to produce a useful national picture.”
EPA's ICIS–NPDES data system has data fields for collecting and reporting some biosolids data. Some of these data fields were identified as required data elements for entry into EPA's data system (i.e., WENDB).
As indicated previously, EPA's sewage sludge regulations (40 CFR part 503) require certain POTWs to submit to the authorized state or EPA region an annual biosolids report. POTWs that must submit an annual report include POTWs with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one million gallons per day, POTWs that serve 10,000 people or more, and Class I sewage sludge management facilities. In general, Class I sewage sludge management facilities must report annually to the permitting authority biosolids monitoring data, quantity of biosolids managed, ultimate end use or disposal of the biosolids, end use or disposal location(s), and vector and pathogen reduction measures. The most recent national review of state management of biosolids data found a variety of data collection, management, and reporting activities.
There are no data collection requirements on sludge removal from septic systems, which is also regulated by EPA (Part 503). Additionally, there are no existing reporting requirements for smaller POTWs without approved local pretreatment programs (
EPA solicits comment on having POTWs electronically submit their biosolids annual reports in compliance with existing biosolids reporting requirements at 40 CFR 503.18, 503.28, and 503.48. The standard data elements for these annual biosolids reports are provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. EPA solicits comment on standardizing biosolids reporting in the following areas:
• Type and amount of biosolids generated and managed;
• Sampling and analytical methods;
• Location of biosolids disposal and management practices;
• Land application data;
• Surface disposal data; and
• Incineration data.
EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 503.18, 503.28, and 503.48 to include electronic reporting requirements.
The electronic collection, management, analysis, and reporting of data from these annual biosolids reports would aid EPA oversight of state, tribe, and territory biosolids programs as well as providing the public with better access to biosolids data. The improved accessibility to biosolids data, in accordance with the proposed rule, would provide the public with useful information on how well POTWs and other biosolids generators are managing their biosolids. These data could also be used to prioritize decisions on EPA, state, tribe, and territory inspections in order to best protect public health and the environment.
EPA and authorized programs issue NPDES permits to municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) which require MS4s to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges and which prohibit illicit discharges pursuant to CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii). The Phase I Stormwater Rule, issued in 1990, requires MS4s serving populations of 100,000 or more to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges (55 FR 47990). The Phase II Rule, issued in 1999, requires small MS4s in urbanized areas, as well as small MS4s outside the urbanized areas that are designated by the permitting authority, to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. Individual permits tend to cover Phase I MS4s and general permits cover most Phase II MS4s.
Stormwater discharges, including discharges from municipal separate storm sewers, industrial facilities and construction sites, can have a significant impact on water quality (DCN 0070, 0071, and November 16, 1990; 55 FR 47991). Such discharges are responsible for beach closings, swimming and fishing advisories, and habitat degradation. Several studies reveal that stormwater discharges from urban areas can include a variety of pollutants, such as turbidity, pathogens, organic nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, oil and grease, and debris. Stormwater picks up a variety of pollutants such as sediment, debris, pesticides, petroleum products, chemicals, solvents, asphalts and acids on its way over streets, buildings, landscaping, construction sites, and industrial areas, and in extreme cases it can alter the pH of the receiving stream or river. These pollutants can harm the environment and public health.
As of October 1, 2011, EPA estimates that there are approximately 6,600 MS4 permits nationwide. Approximately 280 Phase I MS4 permits cover approximately 1,000 permittees in total (many MS4 permits include two or more co-permittees). According to ICIS–NPDES (including data for 34 states, plus territories and tribes), 1,673 permits are designated as having MS4 requirements (
Many MS4 permits contain requirements to implement stormwater management programs to prohibit illicit (non-stormwater) discharges in order to reduce pollutants discharged to the “maximum extent practicable” (MEP). EPA regulations require that permit language for MS4s include the development and implementation of stormwater management plans (SWMPs), which incorporate the use of best management practices (BMPs) to meet these pollutant reduction and illicit discharge elimination requirements. See 40 CFR 122. 26(d)(2)and 122.34. Phase I MS4 permit applications must include estimated reductions in pollutant loadings expected from implementation of the SWMP [see 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(v)]. To be covered by a general permit, Phase II MS4 applications and notices of intent must include “measurable goals” for each of the BMPs to be implemented through the MS4's SWMP [see 40 CFR 122.34(d)(ii)]. Measurable goals are objectives and milestones that quantify the progress of program implementation and the performance of the MS4 BMPs, which EPA can use to track the progress and effectiveness of SWMPs in reducing pollutants to the MEP.
EPA has recommended that measurable goals include, where appropriate, the following three components: (1) The activity, or BMP, to be completed; (2) a schedule or date of completion; and (3) a quantifiable target to measure progress toward achieving the activity or BMP.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.42(c) require operators of large or medium MS4s and municipal separate storm sewer systems that have been designated by the Director of the regulatory authority under § 122.26(a)(1)(v) to submit an annual program report. However, because state-issued MS4 permits vary significantly nationwide in areas such as the breadth and specificity of annual report requirements and because SWMPs are developed and implemented by different MS4s, there is tremendous variability in the content and quality of annual program reports. Additionally, these program reports are a mix of narrative and numeric information. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.34(g)(3) require less information to be reported for small MS4s than for large and medium MS4s, and, except for the initial permit term for small MS4s, the regulation specifies small MS4 reporting to be every two years rather than the annual reporting frequency required for large or medium MS4 permittees.
EPA solicits comment on having MS4 permittees electronically submit their reports in a standardized format using divisible data elements (
EPA is also not proposing to change the frequency of MS4 program reporting. Some MS4 permits may also include numeric benchmarks or numeric parameters that are not themselves effluent limits, but help to determine whether narrative effluent limits are met or whether BMPs are working effectively. Enhancements to NetDMR to include unscheduled reporting would allow for electronic collection of DMR effluent reporting from MS4s; currently, ICIS–NPDES provides for unscheduled DMR data to be manually entered in the database. Finally, EPA is proposing to allow states, tribes, and territories to add their own unique set of data elements, including document attachments (
The MS4 program report should document the MS4 actions during the previous year, evaluate program results, and describe planned changes towards continuous improvement. Although generally program reports are written for the permitting authority, they can also be written for members of the community as a way of divulging progress made towards meeting water quality goals. Electronically collecting these program reports would allow compliance monitoring data to be more easily shared with EPA, states, tribes, territories, and the public. These changes would provide the public with the opportunity to observe and examine the progress made by various MS4 programs towards controlling stormwater discharges. In particular, collecting MS4 program report data electronically would enable EPA, states, tribes, territories, and the public to more readily evaluate the effectiveness of MS4 stormwater control programs. Additionally, electronic collection of data would help permitting authorities to identify and share information on the most effective BMPs for controlling stormwater discharges and avoiding associated violations. Improved data availability through electronic reporting should improve the control of stormwater discharges by more quickly exchanging knowledge amongst permitting authorities and MS4s.
In concert with state, tribe, and territory NPDES permit programs, EPA will likely need to adapt ICIS–NPDES to reflect current MS4 permitting practices. Specifically, some EPA Regions and states issue an individual MS4 permit to regulate multiple MS4s in a geographic area. For example, an MS4 permit issued to the San Francisco Bay Area covers multiple municipalities. Consequently, compliance for individual municipalities cannot adequately be tracked in ICIS–NPDES due to geospatial limitations. EPA would likely need to modify ICIS–NPDES to reflect a data structure more akin to a general permit, which allows for one permit to cover multiple facilities. This is particularly important when one MS4 permit includes multiple urban areas contributing to multiple different urban waters.
As previously noted, EPA is also soliciting comment on changing its regulations governing the standard conditions applicable to all NPDES permits by adding a new standard permit condition [see 40 CFR 122.41(1)(9)] that would require NPDES-regulated facilities to ensure that, for each type of electronic NPDES submission, the information is sent to the appropriate initial recipient, as identified by EPA, and as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b). Authorized NPDES programs would include this requirement in all permits and control mechanisms. See Section IV.K for the implementation plans for the proposed rule. The new standard permit condition at 40 CFR 122.41(1)(9) would ensure that NPDES-regulated facilities know where to send their NPDES compliance data electronically.
The proposed rule also would require EPA to publish on its Web site and in the
The proposed rule would allow authorized NPDES programs to use their own electronic reporting tools provided that the tools meet all of the minimum federal reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. States, tribes, and territories would be required to share the minimum set of federal NPDES data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) that are collected through these electronic state reporting tools with EPA. This sharing of information could be easily accomplished through the NEIEN and EPA's Central Data Exchange. States, tribes, and territories would be able to elect to use EPA's electronic reporting tools or EPA-approved third-party software provider tools. NPDES regulated entities would be required to use an EPA-approved tool to electronically submit their data. When authorized NPDES programs or their electronic reporting tools are not compliant with EPA's electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127) then NPDES regulated entities in that state, tribe, or territory would be required to electronically send their NPDES data to EPA. Regardless of whether a state's, tribe's, territory's, or EPA's, or a third-party electronic reporting tool is used, NPDES program data would be included in ICIS–NPDES and made available to the public through EPA's Web site.
EPA seeks to ensure that electronic reporting has at least the same level of legal defensibility and dependability as information that EPA would obtain through hard-copy paper submission. The Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR), promulgated October 13, 2005, provides the legal framework for electronic reporting requirements established under all EPA environmental regulations (40 CFR part 3). CROMERR establishes signatory, certification, and security standards for information systems that receive reports and other documents electronically (including email, but excluding disks, CDs, and other magnetic and optical media). CROMERR establishes the electronic reporting criteria that must be met in order to ensure that a particular electronic reporting tool can provide
CROMERR applies to (a) regulated entities that electronically submit reports and other documents directly to EPA under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and (b) states, tribes, and local governments that administer or seek to administer EPA-authorized programs under Title 40 and provide electronic information to EPA. Regulated entities should ensure that they use the electronic reporting tools designated by EPA, states, tribes, and territories to receive the specified information and meet the other CROMERR criteria set out in 40 CFR 3.10. NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and territories (and local governments) that wish to continue or begin using electronic reporting of NPDES information to EPA must revise or modify those authorized programs and their electronic reporting tools, if applicable, as appropriate to incorporate CROMERR criteria, and apply for and receive CROMERR approval by EPA under 40 CFR part 3.
At this time, several states have already developed or are developing electronic reporting tools for use by NPDES-regulated facilities. EPA has also developed electronic reporting tools, notably NetDMR. These electronic reporting tools, and other tools to be developed in the future, whether by EPA, states, tribes, territories, or the competitive marketplace, need to be CROMERR-compliant to ensure that they meet EPA's data needs and requirements.
EPA developed a CROMERR system checklist
NetDMR is an example of a CROMERR-compliant electronic reporting tool, described previously in Section IV.E.1.a in the context of DMRs. Among other features ensuring CROMERR compliance by this tool, NetDMR utilizes a subscriber agreement with a designated signatory authority for the NPDES permittee, a password, required responses to security questions, and Secure Socket Layer (SSL) communications.
One person should be clearly designated as the signatory authority for the electronic reporting of particular NPDES information. The federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.22 describe the appropriate management level for anyone designated as a signatory authority for permit applications and reports. If the signatory authority plans to have someone else sign and submit the electronic DMRs, for example, then this individual must be a duly authorized representative of that signatory authority in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22(b). Under CROMERR, electronic systems that accept electronic signatures must be able to effectively prove that those electronic signatures are valid and were created with an electronic signature device that was not compromised. The use of a personal identification number (PIN) or password in combination with a requirement for the user to answer one or more security questions (
A key decision in this proposed rule is determining whether electronic reporting requirements would be relatively easy to meet for most of the NPDES-regulated universe of facilities. For example, 50 percent of rural residents have broadband (see DCN 0030). Although not a necessity, broadband access makes it easier to submit NPDES reports that would be required under this proposed rule. Therefore, broadband access or other measures of the availability of sufficient upload speed may serve as reasonable indicators regarding possible computer access difficulties, particularly in the more remote rural areas.
In the development of this proposed regulatory requirement for electronic reporting by NPDES-regulated facilities, EPA has considered a number of alternatives (described in the paragraph below) for possible temporary waivers or exemptions based on certain criteria. Such a waiver or exemption from electronic reporting of NPDES information would be temporary in that it would remain valid only until the condition(s) meriting the exemption changed or for one year, whichever occurs first, during which time the permittee would still have the requirement to submit the required NPDES information non-electronically to EPA, the authorized state, tribe, or territory. EPA is proposing that these temporary waivers may be granted by EPA, states, tribes, and territories that have received authorization to implement the NPDES program. EPA solicits comment on the granting and duration of these temporary waivers.
For example, EPA has considered, and is seeking comment on, whether to automatically grant temporary waivers from NPDES electronic reporting requirements to each NPDES-permitted facility that is physically located (
As another alternative, EPA has considered whether it should grant temporary exemptions for each NPDES-permitted facility which meets criteria demonstrating that such electronic reporting of NPDES information would pose an unreasonable burden or expense to the NPDES-permitted facility; this is the same concept that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [17 CFR
• The reason(s) that the necessary hardware and software are not available without unreasonable burden and expense;
• The burden and expense associated with using alternative means to make the electronic submission or posting, as applicable; and/or
• The reasons for not submitting the document, group of documents or Interactive Data File electronically, or not posting the Interactive Data File, as well as the justification for the requested time period.
The application for the continued hardship exemption is not deemed granted until the SEC notifies the applicant.
Although the SEC has successfully required electronic reporting from various size companies for the majority of its reports since 1993, it is still possible that a certain subset of NPDES-permitted facilities might claim that they either do not have computers on-site, do not have computer-savvy individuals available, or are a considerable distance away from a location where they could get computer access. EPA is considering the possible use of temporary waivers from electronic reporting of NPDES information for such facilities, although technological advances and computer access are such that there may be few valid instances of such situations. EPA may consider establishing a similar procedure for such temporary waivers if the criteria for such temporary waivers are broadened, in response to comments, beyond that in the proposed rule.
In addition to these possible temporary continued hardship exemptions for NPDES-regulated facilities from electronic reporting, EPA also recognizes that there may be a need for incident-specific one-time waivers or other adjustments for situations that are beyond the control of the reporting facility (
At this time, EPA solicits comment on the need for such temporary waivers or exemptions as well as which criteria should apply for the granting of such temporary exemptions. This proposed rule includes provisions for temporary waivers extending up to a maximum of one year, but comments are sought on all of these options or any other viable options which might be suggested during the official comment process. For comparison, EPA's recently proposed rule (August 13, 2010) regarding Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Reporting Modifications did not include a provision for waivers or exemptions from electronic reporting; however, the preamble for that proposed rule did request comment on whether there are any circumstances in which a company may not have Internet access to report the required data electronically. EPA also solicits comment on whether EPA should also grant waivers to NPDES regulated entities with religious objections to using modern innovations such as electricity and computers.
As described in more detail in Section IV.B, during summer 2010, EPA conducted concurrent technical analyses, which examined various aspects of possible electronic reporting of NPDES information for NPDES-permitted facilities. Based on these analyses, EPA decided what should and should not be included as requirements in this proposed rule.
Among the NPDES reporting requirements that EPA considered but did not include in this proposed rule are the following:
• Electronic submission of applications for individually-issued NPDES permits;
• Electronic submission of annual compliance certifications;
• Electronic submission of certain program reports for vessels;
• Electronic submission of program reports for pesticide applicators;
• Electronic submission of all follow-up reports required under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7).
Each of these is discussed briefly below.
EPA examined the feasibility of requiring permit application information to be submitted electronically and of electronically creating the NPDES permit. This analysis focused on the individually-issued NPDES permits rather than on NPDES general permits; therefore, approximately 46,000 facilities would comprise the universe of facilities that might be covered by such a requirement to electronically submit permit application information.
EPA has developed particular permit application forms to be completed by facilities seeking individual EPA-issued NPDES permits. However, there is considerable state, tribe, and territory variability in permit application forms, data sought, “boilerplate” language, and templates used in the creation of the permit. There are extensive attachments to the permit application forms, including maps, flow charts, monitoring information, etc. Furthermore, the permit application information is not the only information used in constructing a permit. The complex permit writing process utilizes a variety of additional information, such as water quality information and background pollutant concentration data, beyond that provided in the permit application itself; such information would have to be integrated in or easily accessible by an electronic permit writing tool.
Given the complexity of the permitting process, the significant degree of state, tribe, and territory variability, and the extensive attachments that accompany permit application forms, it would be difficult to economically construct and maintain an electronic tool for permit application form submittals that would be nationally-consistent and could create an individual NPDES permit. The Office of Water previously attempted to develop such a national electronic-permitting (
Based on EPA's analysis for this proposed rule, EPA has decided not to include in this proposed rule (1) requirements for electronic submission of nationally-consistent permit application information from facilities, and (2) implementation relying upon the availability of a nationally-
Not every facility covered by a NPDES permit has an existing requirement to submit self-monitoring information in the form of a DMR or similar report. Furthermore, not every facility covered by a NPDES permit has an existing requirement to submit a program report regarding its compliance status (
EPA's NPDES vessels program regulates incidental discharges from the normal operation of vessels. The centerpiece of the NPDES vessel program is the EPA Vessel General Permit (VGP). The VGP is a general permit that is issued and implemented by EPA. The 2008 VGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels operating in a capacity as a means of transportation (see 29 December 2008; 73 FR 79473). All vessel-related requirements are in the VGP. EPA estimates that approximately 61,000 domestically-flagged commercial vessels and approximately 8,000 foreign-flagged vessels may be affected by this permit.
The 2008 VGP identifies information that must be sent to EPA. These requirements include:
• The Notice of Intent (NOI) form (see Appendix E of the VGP);
• Annual report of noncompliance (see section 4.4.1 of the VGP);
• Additional reporting (noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment) (see section 4.4.3 of the VGP); and
• A one-time permit report (see section 4.4.4 of the VGP).
EPA collects the NOI information for vessels electronically, and has built a system to collect the one-time vessel permit report electronically. The 2008 VGP does not require the use of the eNOI system, nor does it require any DMRs or one-time reports to be submitted electronically. Although the vessel eNOI information EPA currently receives is not available through ICIS–NPDES or PCS, EPA plans to adapt ICIS–NPDES and ECHO to make such information available to the public.
EPA's 2008 VGP currently contains monitoring, reporting, inspection, operation and maintenance requirements pertaining to vessels. EPA is not proposing to use this proposed rule to make any changes to NPDES regulations that would be specific to the vessels program. EPA anticipates that any electronic reporting for vessels would be required through a new version of the VGP. EPA solicits public comment on this approach.
On October 31, 2011, EPA issued a final NPDES Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for point source discharges from the application of pesticides to waters of the United States. While the permit requirements must be met as of October 31, 2011, operators will be covered automatically under the PGP without submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for any discharges before January 12, 2012. To continue coverage after January 12, 2012, those Operators who are required to submit NOIs will need to do so at least 10 days (or 30 days for discharges to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern) prior to January 12, 2012. For the first 120 days that the permit is in effect, EPA will focus on providing compliance assistance and education of the permit requirements, rather than on enforcement actions.
The Agency's final PGP covers Operators that apply pesticides that result in discharges from the following use patterns: (1) Mosquito and other flying insect pest control; (2) weed and algae control; (3) animal pest control; and (4) forest canopy pest control. The permit requires permittees to minimize pesticide discharges through the use of pest management measures and monitor for and report any adverse incidents. Some permittees are also required to submit NOIs prior to beginning to discharge and implement integrated pest management (IPM)-like practices. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements will provide valuable information to EPA and the public regarding where, when, and how much pesticides are being discharged to waters of the U.S. Pesticide application use patterns not covered by EPA's Pesticide General Permit may need to obtain coverage under an individual permit or alternative general permit if they result in point source discharges to waters of the U.S.
This general permit will provide coverage for discharges in the areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority, which include four states (Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico), Washington, DC, most U.S. territories and Indian country lands, and many federal facilities (for details, click here (PDF) (5 pp, 239K)). In the remaining 46 states (and the Virgin Islands), the states are authorized to develop and issue the NPDES pesticide permits.
At this time, prior to the effective date of the requirement for these discharges from pesticide applications to be covered under a NPDES permit, EPA does not envision the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule making any changes to NPDES regulations that would be specific to such discharges. Given the various implementation approaches, compliance and reporting requirements that may be contained in EPA's final PGP as well as in the NPDES-authorized state-, tribe-, or territory-issued permits, any changes that EPA might make with respect to electronic reporting for discharges from pesticide applications could be made through the notice and comment process of the pesticide general permit. EPA solicits public comment on this approach.
NPDES regulations require permittees to report any noncompliance which may
This proposed regulation amends the existing regulation at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) for combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, and bypass incidents to require these follow-up reports to be submitted electronically within 5 days from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. This proposed regulation also would require electronic reporting of CSOs, SSOs, and POTW bypasses that are in noncompliance per 40 CFR 122.41(l)(7).
EPA solicits comment on whether it should expand electronic noncompliance reporting to other forms of noncompliance that are not already addressed in the above referenced proposed changes incorporated into today's proposed regulation.
Historically, EPA has relied upon the permitting authority for submission of the NPDES information in EPA's national NPDES data systems. With this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, EPA would require permittees to submit a large portion of that NPDES data electronically, which would significantly reduce the amount of information that would otherwise be required from the authorized state, tribe, or territory NPDES programs.
Nevertheless, under the approach described in this proposed rule, EPA would still require NPDES information from authorized state, tribe, or territory NPDES programs, particularly information linked to the implementation activities and responsibilities of the authorized state, tribe, or territory NPDES programs. The types of NPDES information EPA would require to be reported by the states, tribes, and territories with authorization to implement the NPDES program would include:
• Facility information for individually-issued NPDES permits;
• Permit information for individually-issued NPDES permits and master general permits [including information specific to subprograms such as CAFOs, CSOs, SSOs, pretreatment, biosolids, stormwater, cooling water intakes, and thermal variances;
• Compliance monitoring and inspection activities;
• Compliance determination information;
• Enforcement action information;
• Other NPDES information required to be submitted electronically from permittees or other regulated entities, but routed by the electronic reporting tools to the states, tribes, or territories initially rather than to EPA; and
• Other NPDES information listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 that permittees submit non-electronically to their authorized state, tribe, or territory.
Each of these NPDES data types are described further in the sections that follow.
The states, tribes, and territories which have received authorization to implement the NPDES program are the entities that have the primary responsibility to issue permits, perform inspections, make compliance determinations, and take enforcement actions. Most of the data that this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comments, would require the authorized NPDES programs to submit to EPA would be generated during the course of those activities. As such, the authorized NPDES programs are the unique and appropriate sources to provide these types of NPDES data to EPA and to be responsible for the quality and accuracy of that data.
Another key part of this proposed rule is ensuring that, if submissions of NPDES information are sent by the NPDES-regulated facilities to the states, tribes, or territories initially rather than to EPA, the states, tribes, and territories would provide that information electronically to EPA. In turn, EPA would provide the states, tribes, and territories with NPDES information it receives from the NPDES-regulated facilities. In either case, the key would be to “complete the circuit” electronically through the NEIEN, so that all of the required information submitted by the NPDES-regulated facilities would be available, timely, accurate, complete, in a nationally consistent manner for use by EPA, states, tribes, and territories, and for presentation to the public.
For the proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, the types of information that would be required to be submitted to EPA electronically by the states, tribes, and territories authorized to implement the NPDES program are described briefly below. Rather than establish different timeliness criteria for different types of data, EPA proposes that the required NPDES data be provided by the states, tribes, and territories to EPA within 30 days of the date of permit issuance, date of inspection, date of violation determination, date of enforcement action, or date of receipt of the information electronically (or non-electronically under a temporary waiver) from the permittee, as applicable. EPA invites comment on the 30-day timeliness criterion.
In EPA's NPDES national data systems, it is necessary to create a facility record before other information may be entered or otherwise made available. Therefore, this core set of basic facility data, as identified in an attachment to the 1985 PCS Policy Statement (as amended), are essential to EPA national data systems in order to create a facility record to which other NPDES information may be linked, such as permit information, compliance status, inspection information, violation determinations, enforcement action information, etc.
Through this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, the types of basic facility information that the states, tribes, and territories would be required to provide EPA for the facilities covered by NPDES individually-issued permits would include information regarding the facility itself (such as the site name of the facility and the type of ownership), information regarding the facility's location (such as address, city, state, zip code, and information meeting EPA's data standards associated with latitude and longitude), and information regarding a contact for that facility (such as name, title, address, etc.). The complete list of such basic facility information that would be required through this proposed rule is identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127.
Much of this basic facility information already exists in EPA's national NPDES data systems, particularly for major permittees, and some of the information not found in the national data system,
Under the approach described in the proposed rule, if, for whatever reason, facilities covered by NPDES general permits do not provide the NOI data electronically by the compliance deadline, then the authorized NPDES programs would be responsible for also ensuring that basic facility information for facilities operating under general permits is provided electronically to EPA.
Through this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, the type of permit information that the states, tribes, and territories would be required to provide EPA for the facilities covered by NPDES individually-issued or general permits would consist of:
• Basic permit information;
• Information regarding designated outfalls or permitted features;
• Information regarding the applicable limit sets;
• Information regarding the applicable effluent limitations;
• Information regarding narrative conditions and permit schedules; and
• Information relevant to specific NPDES subprograms, such as CAFOs, CSOs, SSOs, pretreatment, biosolids, stormwater, cooling water intakes, and thermal variances.
Basic information regarding the permit refers primarily to some of the key identifier information for that permit. Such information includes the permit number or other identifier, the permit type, the program components covered by the permit, the permit status and key dates related to application and issuance, information regarding whether the facility is a major permittee, industrial classification codes indicating the type of facility, the permit issuing organization, applicable effluent guidelines, and the permittee's name and address. See Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 for a complete list of required data.
Under this proposed rule, information would also be required regarding the permitted features or outfalls identified in the permit. Such information includes the design flow and actual flow from such outfalls, an identifier for such outfalls, the type of permitted feature, the receiving waterbody, and the physical location (latitude and longitude) of such permitted features. See Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127 for a complete list of required data. This information is essential in compliance tracking because permit limits and limit sets are identified for specific outfalls or permitted features.
Under this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, to enable electronic reporting and evaluation of DMRs, information would also be required regarding the specific set of numerical or narrative limits, and the limits themselves, identified for each permitted feature identified in the permit. The proposed rule would require the permitting authority to provide NPDES permit limits (
Information regarding permit limits sets would include a text description of the limit set (
Under this proposed rule, information would also be required from the narrative conditions or permit-contained schedules, including such information as the type of narrative condition, an identifier code or description of the permit schedule event, the scheduled and actual dates for the achievement or occurrence of that event, and the received date for the report which documented that achievement or occurrence. As an example, such narrative conditions or permit schedules frequently impose a permit requirement that a particular type of report be sent to the permitting agency on a specific repeating schedule (
In addition, this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, would also require permit-related data from the NPDES permit application. This permit application data includes information on particular NPDES subprograms such as biosolids, SSOs, pretreatment, CSOs, stormwater, CAFOs, cooling water intakes, and thermal variances. The complete list of data that would be required through this proposed rule is identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. Additionally, some facilities seeking coverage under a general permit will submit similar data to their permitting authority. Authorized states, tribes, and territories would be required to share these facility-supplied data with EPA.
Historically in the NPDES program and in accordance with existing policy, the authorized programs implementing the NPDES program have been expected for several decades to provide the basic inspection information to EPA for major permittees and for nonmajor permittees. For example, in the PCS Policy Statement (as amended), EPA indicated that the states, tribes, and territories are expected to provide a core set of such basic inspection data to EPA through PCS.
As discussed previously in this preamble, in addition to information submitted by the NPDES-regulated facilities, some NPDES data, including inspection information, is also needed from the states, tribes, and territories. EPA, states, tribes, and territories perform these inspection activities, and therefore they are the unique source of the inspection information provided to EPA.
These inspections could identify the compliance status of the facilities, potential remedies needed, and changes
Through this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, the type of basic inspection information that the states, tribes, and territories would be required to provide EPA would include the end date of such a compliance monitoring activity, the facility inspected, the type of compliance monitoring, the reason for such compliance monitoring, the lead office for such compliance monitoring, and the law sections evaluated and potentially violated at the facility (
In addition to the basic information that would be required for any NPDES inspection, required compliance monitoring information also would include information specific to the NPDES subprograms. For example, there are specific items that would apply if a CAFO facility had been inspected, or for pretreatment, CSOs, SSOs, etc. The complete list of such subprogram-specific inspection information that would be required through this proposed rule is identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127.
This proposed rule would require authorized states, tribes, and territories to provide EPA with inspection information for all NPDES-regulated facilities, in accordance with stated quality assurance and quality control procedures. EPA anticipates that such inspection data would be provided at a reporting frequency approximating the inspection frequency specified in the EPA Compliance Monitoring Strategy (October 2007 or as subsequently revised), or as delineated in alternative inspection strategies contained in EPA-state, EPA-tribe, or EPA-territory agreements.
In the existing federal regulations [40 CFR 123.26(e)(2) and (4)], states, tribes, and territories that have received authorization to implement the NPDES program “shall have procedures and ability for”:
• Initial screening (
• Maintaining a management information system which supports the compliance evaluation activities of this part.
Under the existing data reporting structure, if the DMRs for the NPDES major permittees and the relevant numeric effluent limitations from the NPDES permit requirements are in EPA's national data systems, the data systems can automatically identify violations of numeric effluent limitations. These violation determinations, which can be made for individual pollutants and at the facility level, also identify what would constitute Category I and Category II noncompliance based upon the regulations at 40 CFR 123.45 and EPA's national guidance and policy [see EPA's Enforcement Management System (EMS), DCN 0037]. These determinations can then be used in the creation of the required quarterly and annual noncompliance reports to track the compliance status of NPDES-regulated facilities (see 40 CFR 123.45). In addition, if the appropriate due dates and milestone dates have been entered by the states, tribes, or territories, EPA's national NPDES data systems have also been designed to identify whether reports are late and whether milestones have been missed in permit schedules or in compliance schedules. These additional violation determinations could determine whether a facility is in noncompliance for reporting violations or for schedule violations.
Violation determinations may also be made based upon other information available to the states, tribes, territories, or EPA, such as inspection information, review of program report information, public complaints, information collection requests, incident reports, etc. For these identifications of noncompliance, EPA has developed guidance (the “PCS Single Event Data Entry Guide”, May 2006, and the “ICIS–NPDES Single Event Violation Guide”, October 2008) on how to track such violations [referred to as single event violations (SEVs)] in the NPDES national data systems.
SEVs include one-time events as well as violations with longer durations. SEVs may be used by the states, tribes, territories, and EPA to report the compliance status of a facility for permit or regulatory violations that are not automatically flagged by the database. In the case of unpermitted facilities, SEVs may be entered in response to violations of CWA NPDES regulations.
Since 1988, SEVs identified by EPA, states, tribes, and territories are expected to be entered into EPA's national NPDES databases by the authorized NPDES program for major NPDES-regulated facilities and facilities covered by EPA's General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR part 403). A joint memorandum from the EPA Office of Compliance and Office of Civil Enforcement issued in October 2008 clarified the expectation that EPA regional offices to enter into PCS or ICIS–NPDES all SEVs discovered by EPA regional offices for other nonmajor permits/facilities, starting in FY 2009.
These compliance determinations are one of the many responsibilities and activities of the states, tribes, and territories with NPDES program authorization. The availability of such compliance determination information from states, tribes, territories, and EPA is critical to determining the compliance status of NPDES-permitted facilities. This information is needed on a facility-specific basis to better identify potential problems; ensure that appropriate action is taken to address noncompliance; better quantify national or state noncompliance rates; and to provide a more complete and transparent picture to permitting authorities, the public, Congress, and other stakeholders of the overall implementation and effectiveness of the NPDES program.
EPA has facility-specific information regarding the compliance status of NPDES-regulated facilities for only a very small percentage (less than 1 percent of the total NPDES universe;
The list of information that would be required under this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, includes such basic items as the start and end dates for the violations, the type of violation, which agency identified the violation, when noncompliance was identified, and when it was resolved. In addition, some compliance-related data are tracked at the basic permit level, including whether noncompliance tracking is occurring automatically in EPA's NPDES national data system, and the noncompliance status and fiscal quarters of noncompliance. A complete listing of these data is provided in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127. The proposed rule also updates 40 CFR 123.26 to reflect the new electronic reporting requirements.
One of the key activities for states, tribes, and territories implementing the NPDES program is taking enforcement actions as appropriate to address and remedy noncompliance by the NPDES-regulated facilities. Historically in the NPDES program and in accordance with policy, the states, tribes, and territories have been expected to provide basic information regarding enforcement actions (whether formal or informal) to EPA for major permittees. In the PCS Policy Statement (as amended) and the ICIS Addendum to the Appendix of the 1985 Permit Compliance System Statement, EPA indicated that the states, tribes, and territories were expected to provide a core set of such basic enforcement action data for major permittees to EPA through PCS and ICIS–NPDES.
In addition to information submitted by the NPDES-regulated facilities, some NPDES data, including enforcement action information, are also needed from the states, tribes, and territories, as they are the unique source of the enforcement action information.
In the context of the State Review Framework (a tool to evaluate state enforcement program performance) and development of the ANCR, several states have voiced concerns that EPA did not fully recognize and credit the extent to which states rely on compliance achieved through the issuance of informal enforcement actions, including a variety of enforcement actions which do not impose a compliance schedule. These states expressed concern that without such information regarding informal enforcement actions, EPA and the public did not have a complete picture of the state efforts to obtain compliance by the NPDES-regulated facilities. EPA has made efforts to ensure that information from the states regarding such informal enforcement actions is considered and made available. Similarly, this proposed rule would require states, tribes, and territories to provide EPA with facility-specific information regarding formal and informal enforcement actions for all NPDES-regulated permittees.
As indicated in this proposed rule, the type of basic information that the states, tribes, and territories would be required to provide EPA regarding enforcement actions would include the type of enforcement action, information specific to final orders (administrative or judicial), penalty information, information regarding permit schedules or compliance schedules, and information regarding milestones or sub-activities identified in permit schedules or compliance schedules. The complete list of enforcement action information that would be required through this proposed rule is identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127.
In addition to the NPDES information related to implementation and enforcement activities by the regulatory authorities, the proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, would also require that the regulatory authorities ensure that the information submitted to the regulatory authorities by the NPDES-regulated facilities would then be provided to EPA in a timely, accurate, complete, and nationally-consistent manner. The requirements regarding timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and national consistency for these data submissions to EPA are defined in 40 CFR 127.23. This concept of “completing the circuit,” for the NPDES information, is critical to ensuring that the regulatory authority and EPA have access to the permittee's information. This requirement to share such NPDES information from the regulatory authority to EPA (and vice versa) would be created under the proposed rule even if the electronic reporting tool provides permittee information only to the regulatory authority or if the permittee supplies hard-copy information under the terms of a temporary waiver.
Although 46 states and the Virgin Islands have authorization to implement the NPDES program as of October 2011, not all of these authorized programs implement the entire NPDES program. For example, 10 of these states and the Virgin Islands have not received authorization to implement the pretreatment program. As another example, only eight states have received authorization to implement the NPDES biosolids program. EPA expects states, tribes, and territories to provide EPA with the required NPDES information to the extent that those authorities have received NPDES program authorization. States, tribes, and territories that do not have authority to implement particular parts of the NPDES program would not be expected to provide information on those parts of the program.
Similarly, certain states, tribes, and territories may not have a particular type of facility within their boundaries. For example, several states do not have any combined sewer systems (CSSs) within their states; therefore, EPA would not expect to receive any CSS information from those particular states.
Other states, tribes, or territories may have too few of a particular type of facility to warrant the expense of developing electronic reporting systems by the regulatory authority to capture data from those facilities. As an alternative, electronic reporting tools would be made available by EPA and by third-party software vendors. These tools must fully meet EPA's electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. EPA seeks comment on whether, in such instances where only a few of a particular type of facility exist within a particular regulatory authority, EPA should allow the regulatory authority to decide whether their permittees should report to EPA electronically using a national tool, or report in a hard-copy format to the regulatory authority, in which case the regulatory authority would then assume the responsibility for processing the data into electronic form and providing that information to EPA.
It is conceivable that some regulatory authorities may not have implemented certain portions of the NPDES program that are included in these authorizations; nonetheless, EPA would expect to receive the required NPDES information regarding each of those subprograms included in their NPDES authorized program.
Regardless of the regulatory authority's current level of electronic reporting from permittees or data system development, the regulatory authorities
On August 26, 1985, EPA promulgated final revisions to regulations for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program to require Quarterly Noncompliance Reports (QNCR) to be prepared and submitted by the states, tribes, and territories that are authorized to implement the NPDES program and by EPA regions for states, tribes, and territories not yet authorized. Those revised regulations are found in 40 CFR 123.45 and include two types of noncompliance which must be reported on the QNCR for major facilities, Category I and Category II. The regulations at 40 CFR 123.45 also require semi-annual noncompliance reports for major facilities and summary-level annual noncompliance reports for nonmajor facilities.
As reflected in this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, the Agency is proposing to modify these requirements in 40 CFR 123.45 of the NPDES regulations to more accurately reflect the technological environment of the 21st century that includes the new e-reporting requirements being proposed today and the evolution of the NPDES regulatory program over the last 25 years. Today's proposed rule would remove requirements for obsolete paper reports that can instead be generated from data in EPA's data systems through electronic reporting. By removing obsolete reports, the proposed rule would lessen state, tribe, and territory burden, while also updating the regulations to allow all authorized programs and EPA to more effectively track activities within the broader NPDES universe. The changes will make NPDES information easier to understand, and will provide the public with a complete inventory of violations that are self-reported by permittees or identified by regulatory agencies. The changes will also support EPA's 2009 Clean Water Act Action Plan goals of improving public transparency, identifying the most serious violations, and informing reviews of EPA, state, tribe, and territory enforcement programs.
Data collection for the NPDES program should be updated to reflect currently available technologies and the current NPDES universe and thus facilitate improved public transparency. The NPDES universe has grown and diversified substantially since the 1980s and now includes approximately one million diverse point sources of which only approximately 6,700 are majors. Focusing the QNCR only on majors excludes more than 99 percent of the regulated NPDES universe from more rigorous facility-level public accountability. Many regulated point sources—such as stormwater discharges, concentrated animal feeding operations, mines, and raw sewage overflows—are considered to be significant contributors to water quality impairment and human health risks today (DCN 0045, 0070, 0071, 0072, 0073, and 0074). However, because many of these sources do not meet the NPDES definition of major facilities, they have been excluded from the QNCR. This has set up a situation where there is very robust tracking, management, and public accountability for a very small subset (major facilities) of the NPDES regulated universe, but very little public information on locations, types of violations, and enforcement by authorized states, tribes, and territories regarding these other nonmajor facilities. As a result, EPA currently has difficulty accurately assessing the effectiveness of NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and territories, as well as its own activities, in these other important NPDES sectors and is not able to provide more complete NPDES noncompliance and enforcement information to Congress and the public.
EPA has also received feedback from states and public data users that the existing terminology and nomenclature for cataloguing violations is too confusing. This proposed rule seeks to simplify and improve the transparency and utility of violation information including facilitation of EPA's, states', tribes', and territories' abilities to focus on the problems of greatest concern.
The existing annual, semi-annual, and quarterly reporting requirements are aimed at organizing violation information to facilitate EPA's assessment of the effectiveness of EPA, state, tribe, and territorial compliance activities and thereby best determine how to manage or oversee program activities.
The primary purpose of the QNCR is to provide facility-specific information used to identify patterns of noncompliance by the largest contributors of pollutants (
The Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR) uses similar definitions as the QNCR, but was designed as a summary (not facility-specific) view of violations and enforcement response by the regulatory authority for nonmajor facilities. At the time the existing regulations were written, technology limitations required that monthly DMRs be entered into the data system manually one at a time by state and EPA regulators. The data entry burden for entering all DMR reports for major and nonmajor facilities with individual permits (over 45,000 facilities) was too high, so EPA required DMR data entry by the authorized states, tribes, and territories into the national data systems (PCS and ICIS) only for the major facilities. EPA and authorized NPDES states developed the major facility definition through guidance to screen and identify those facilities with the largest environmental footprints and thus deemed at the time to be most important to track for violations at the facility level.
The ANCR summary report provides summary information about the number and types of violations and enforcement responses at nonmajor facilities during a one-year reporting period in a particular state, tribe, or territory. Over the last several years, the ANCR has shown that in many states, the rate of
With the transition to electronically-reported DMRs directly from facilities into the national data system or to existing state, tribe, or territory data systems, the need to maintain separate reporting formats and requirements for major facilities and nonmajor facilities are no longer relevant to the program. Furthermore, the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule allows EPA to remove the burden of producing these reports from the states; instead, EPA would be able to automatically produce the reports and make them available for use by states, tribes, territories, and the public.
The QNCR (for major facilities) and the ANCR (for nonmajor facilities) use identical numeric calculations to place violations into two categories. Violations that exceed certain thresholds of time, magnitude, or frequency of occurrence are specified in the regulations at 40 CFR 123.45 as being significant. “Category I” noncompliance involves applying certain specific “technical review criteria” or “TRC”
One additional consideration that EPA, states, tribes, and territories discussed at length under the Clean Water Act Action Plan was whether the existing Technical Review Criteria (TRC) identified in Appendix A to 40 CFR 123.45 for categorizing the severity of violations should be maintained. EPA has not proposed changing these violation determinations. Many of the EPA and state participants in the Clean Water Act Action Plan thought that the existing thresholds were useful and should be retained. However, there are some gaps that are addressed in this proposed rule.
The existing regulations do not determine the type of enforcement response required to be taken by the state, tribe, territory, or EPA. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, section 123.45 is a reporting regulation—focused on aligning key information that can assist with both enforcement priority-setting and transparency. Enforcement policy remains under the discretion of EPA and the permitting authority and outside the scope of this proposed rule. Over the past 25 years, EPA has developed policy and guidance documents that utilize information via the regulations to prioritize violations and determine appropriate responses. EPA wants to clarify that the proposed changes do not alter its enforcement expectations for the states, tribes, territories, or EPA regions. Any revisions to enforcement response guidelines would be accomplished via updates to existing guidance or policy, such as the EMS. The changes outlined in this proposed rule will make the NPDES data more inclusive and easier to use, and inform any future enforcement policy changes that are envisioned under the Clean Water Act Action Plan.
Given the evolving NPDES program, advancing technology, and the updated reporting mechanisms and requirements included in this proposed rule, EPA is seeking comment on changes to 40 CFR 123.45, entitled, “Noncompliance and program reporting by the Director.” The purposes of these changes are to: (1) Provide a more accurate and comprehensive report of known violations using a more complete set of noncompliance information that would be flowing as a result of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule; (2) improve EPA's ability to analyze, track, and manage violations; (3) ensure the full universe of NPDES sources is considered in tracking, analyzing, and managing compliance and enforcement programs; (4) establish a better process to ensure EPA is focused on the most serious pollution problems and can keep pace with changes to the permitting program and new limit types; and (5) reduce state, tribe, and territory reporting burden by removing or phasing out requirements for existing hard-copy reports or other reports than can be produced by EPA from NPDES national data systems. Based on a date three years after the effective date of the final rule, the existing regulatory text in 40 CFR 123.45 would be replaced by the proposed new text for that section.
To accomplish these changes, EPA is proposing to reorganize noncompliance information and establish a new public inventory of all reported violations based on existing reporting requirements and other new requirements that would be phased in under this proposed rule. The content of the inventory would be very similar to what is currently provided by EPA on the Internet in the ECHO Web site, but will include reported violations from the broader universe of NPDES-regulated sources. The proposed rule establishes an EPA-generated NPDES Noncompliance Report (NNCR) that would include a complete, simplified listing of all recorded violations at major and nonmajor facilities. The report would incorporate the existing content of the QNCR and the ANCR (
The proposed rule is not designed to limit EPA's flexibility in providing data more frequently than quarterly. So, for example, if inspections or violations were identified one month after the official quarter ended, EPA would maintain the ability to provide that information prior to conclusion of the next official quarter. The NNCR provides a snapshot of the violation status within a quarter, which can be combined with other regulatory data, such as the frequency of inspection and follow-up enforcement action, to provide a full picture of compliance at a NPDES-regulated facility. The purpose of the NNCR is to provide regulators and the public with information about
The listing of a facility on the NNCR for transparency purposes is not intended to dictate the appropriate enforcement response or in any way establish criteria for selecting enforcement actions. However, overall trends and rates (for example, the percent of facilities with violations) may be a useful tool for assessing violation trends on a regional or nationwide basis. Because EPA will produce the NNCR using data that are required to be reported to EPA electronically in a format compatible with ICIS–NPDES, there is no additional burden on states, tribes, or territories. In fact, in addition to eliminating the requirement for authorized programs to submit QNCR reports, EPA proposes to phase out the requirement that authorized programs submit semi-annual statistical and annual noncompliance reports (ANCRs).
EPA's system for categorizing violations on public Web sites is based upon the existing regulations within 40 CFR 123.45. As indicated in the proposed rule, EPA is considering updating 40 CFR 123.45 to modify the definitions of Category I and Category II noncompliance to implement one of the Clean Water Act Action Plan objectives to improve how serious violations are categorized. As currently structured, the existing regulations do not sufficiently categorize violations based on severity and potential for water quality impacts.
The existing regulation assumes that “Category I” violations are considered more serious, while “Category II” violations are not as severe. EPA values classifying violations and that there is room for improvement in the existing regulation. Many of the most severe violations occurring in the today's NPDES program do not currently qualify as “Category I.” EPA has recognized this within the EMS by considering certain Category II violations to be “significant noncompliance” or SNC (and must be reported on the QNCR). This has created several inconsistencies between publicly-released data and the underlying regulations. This proposed rule seeks to remedy this problem. EPA is proposing to include those more serious violations into Category I, while all other violations become Category II. EPA is proposing an option that will retain most historically-used definitions that would move a facility from Category II into Category I. EPA is also proposing to leverage the data that would be required electronically under this proposed rule so that the severity of violations is evaluated for all facilities—not just the major facilities.
In addition to the establishment of a NNCR, there are two components to the proposed approach to classifying violations. The first component covers violation classification; applicability to regulatory entity types; and revisions to annual, semi-annual, and quarterly reporting. The second component sets up a procedure for EPA to regularly assess what pollutant types, limit types, and measurement types/frequency are considered in classifying the severity of violations. These components are described below.
EPA proposes to make adjustments to the existing regulation, while keeping the underlying concepts in place. First, the distinction between major and nonmajor regulated entities would be eliminated as it relates to 40 CFR 123.45. Second, Category I noncompliance, as defined under the existing regulation, would be slightly expanded to include a subset of violations currently classified as Category II. These include Category II noncompliance that pose a specific threat to water quality, including those that adversely impact water quality, human health, or designated uses of surface waters. EPA would retain the existing TRC for Group I and Group II Pollutants in 40 CFR 123.45, Appendix A. These thresholds would be applied to both major and nonmajor facilities, as they are within the existing regulation, but would ensure that other types of NPDES-regulated facilities that do not regularly report DMRs become eligible to be placed in Category I due to water quality impacts. The proposed regulatory text reflects how this change would be accomplished. All NPDES-regulated sources would be tiered into Category I if their effluent violations were significantly over the limit for a period of time, or if the violations are included in the existing definition of Category I (
The proposed revisions to 40 CFR 123.45 would simplify and improve the organization, completeness, and transparency of NPDES noncompliance information. EPA, states, tribes, and territories could utilize this improved information to inform future revisions to EPA's national enforcement guidance and policies to identify, prioritize, and address the most serious CWA NPDES violations.
As reflected in this proposed rule, EPA is considering adding a section to the existing regulation that requires EPA to establish a policy-making process with state, tribe, territory, and public involvement to add or delete pollutants that are subject to Category I classification for permit effluent limit violations, and to determine how criteria other than monthly average permit limit violations of a certain magnitude and frequency can be elevated to Category I classification.
Under this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, EPA retains the existing lists of Group
EPA proposes that the policy/guidance process for adding pollutant types that are eligible for Category I classification for permit effluent limit violations can also be used as the process for identifying potential changes to the reporting thresholds (
In summary, the policy and guidance process discussed here would provide a forum for updating/changing: (1) Pollutants subject to Category I classification for permit effluent limit violations; (2) measurement frequency examined for Category I classification for permit effluent limit violations; and (3) reporting thresholds used for existing or new pollutants or measurement frequency that are associated with Category I classification for permit effluent limit violations. These decisions would be established in EPA national guidance and policy (like the EMS), which may be updated as needed.
The proposed rule incorporates several small changes, including the synchronization of reports on a Federal fiscal year basis.
The existing federal regulations at 40 CFR 501.21 require each authorized State, Tribe, or Territory Program Director to annually submit summary-level information to the Regional Administrator regarding state sewage sludge management programs. This required information includes: (1) a summary of the incidents of noncompliance which occurred in the previous year and any details; and (2) information to update the inventory of all sewage sludge generators and sewage sludge disposal facilities submitted with the program plan or in previous annual reports.
This proposed rule seeks comment on whether EPA should amend provision 40 CFR 501.21, which would allow EPA to eliminate the requirement for authorized programs to report biosolids information to EPA. The rationale for such an amendment is that, if EPA's NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule requires sufficient information directly and electronically from these permittees and ensures that authorized programs and EPA share such information, then EPA could generate such a report based upon that information and alleviate biosolids reporting burden for this existing regulatory requirement from authorized programs.
Ultimately, under this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, authorized programs would eventually no longer be required under this existing regulation to report on the status of their sewage sludge management programs, provide updates of their inventory to EPA of sewage sludge generators and sludge disposal facilities, or provide information on incidents of noncompliance, except for those identified during state biosolids inspections, because this requirement to supply information would fall on the facilities directly. Additionally, the electronic submission of this biosolids information from the permittees in accordance with the proposed rule will improve the timeliness, cost, and efficiency in the reporting of facility noncompliance and inventory data related to the biosolids subprogram.
Therefore, based on these considerations, this proposed rule eventually would remove state biosolids reporting requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 501.21, three years after the effective date of the final rule. EPA would be able to generate the reports based upon the available data provided directly from permittees, and supplemented by authorized program information regarding their biosolids program implementation activities, through the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.
For this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, the regulated entities are primarily the NPDES-regulated facilities [
If NPDES-regulated facilities fail to comply with this federal regulation for electronic reporting of NPDES information, they may be subject to the same types of enforcement responses that are available for failure to submit written (paper-based) or oral reports. This proposed rule clearly identifies each report that must be electronically submitted to EPA or the authorized NPDES program.
In response to such noncompliance, EPA and the authorized programs
EPA also needs to ensure that our regulatory partners responsible for NPDES implementation are meeting Federal requirements as set forth in this regulation. EPA would have the full range of options available to ensure state, tribal, and territorial compliance with this rule, as it would to ensure state, tribal, and territorial compliance with any other aspect of the NPDES program. In particular, the proposed rule outlines the procedure for ensuring the completeness and timeliness of data submissions from states, tribes, or territories that have received authorization from EPA to implement the NPDES program. This procedure includes public notification of the initial recipient of NPDES compliance data for each state, tribe, and territory and the requirement that authorized NPDES programs must maintain the capacity to share all the required NPDES information with EPA through automated data transfers. Finally, this procedure outlines the corrective actions necessary to ensure the seamless electronic collection from NPDES-regulated facilities and the sharing of NPDES compliance data with the public.
EPA is considering establishing the effective date for this regulation as 60 days after the promulgation date for most parts of the final rule, except for some specified components of the rule. See Section IV.K for a description of the series of compliance dates that follow the initial effective date for this regulation (
In accordance with 40 CFR 123.63, NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and territories as proposed to have one year after the effective date of the final rule to revise their NPDES program to comply with this rule through any necessary regulatory or policy changes and two years after the effective date of the final rule if statutory changes are needed to conform their programs to the requirements of the rule. Additionally, EPA is proposing to utilize a CWA request, conducted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, to start collecting NPDES program data by one year after the effective date of the final rule (Phase 1 data) and two years after the effective date of the final rule (Phase 2 data). States, tribes, and territories should review the “State Readiness Criteria” to determine the actions they need to take to ensure that facilities in their state, tribe, or territory would not need to report to EPA in addition to their authorized NPDES program. The rule implementation plan and compliance dates for NPDES-regulated facilities are described in Section IV.I.
Given the significant potential data entry cost savings that the states, tribes, and territories could accrue by moving sooner toward electronic reporting of NPDES information by the permittees, there should be significant incentive for these governmental entities to move in that direction. EPA notes that there will be some initial start up costs to switch to electronic reporting. Some states, tribes, and territories may examine whether they could easily adopt the new rulemaking by reference or even make a blanket change to all of their NPDES permits to more timely facilitate a change to electronic reporting by NPDES-regulated facilities. States, tribes, and territories could also consider utilizing EPA's database and electronic reporting tools as a cost savings measure.
Under certain circumstances, and as described in Section IV.E.5, temporary waivers from electronic reporting may be granted to NPDES-regulated facilities, NPDES permit applicants, and industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs. These temporary waivers may be granted by the states, tribes, and territories that have received authorization to implement the NPDES program (including the applicable subprograms). In situations where EPA is the permitting authority, EPA may choose to grant such temporary waivers, using procedures similar to those described in this section. Temporary waivers are to extend no more than one year at which time the facility must reapply for a waiver.
EPA notes that the proposed implementation plan would expedite the electronic submission of NPDES program data as compared to implementing electronic reporting through the permit renewal cycle. As a potential backstop, EPA is considering using its authority under CWA sections 101, 304(i), 308, 402(b), and 501 to require the electronic collection and transfer of NPDES program data to EPA as part of this rule, where authorized states, tribes, and territories are not ready to implement electronic reporting. Under this proposal, EPA would utilize its existing authority under the CWA and current technology to allow everyone to more quickly realize the benefits of electronic reporting.
The benefits of this proposal include accelerated resource savings that states, tribes, and territories would realize through reduced data entry burden and reduced effort in responding to public requests for data, consistent requirements for electronic reporting across all states, tribes, and territories, increased data quality, and more timely access to NPDES program data in an electronic format for EPA, states, tribes, and territories, regulated entities, and the public. Under the proposal, a complete set of information for the regulated universe covered by this proposed rule would be required two years after the effective date of the final rule. The Agency's proposal to rely on its authority under the CWA to collect these data directly from NPDES-regulated facilities is supported by the availability of technologies for electronic reporting, the needs of EPA states, tribes, and territories for complete NPDES program data, and the stated goal to make this data available to the public.
By comparison, without this accelerated schedule, it would likely take at least until 2022 to make this information available electronically, including approximately seven years for states, tribes, and territories to update their statutes and NPDES permits to require electronic reporting (
Given the different types of NPDES program data, EPA is proposing to phase in the electronic collection and transfer of NPDES program data on the following schedule. For NPDES-regulated entities that will use EPA's electronic reporting tools, EPA will work closely with states, tribes, territories, and NPDES-regulated entities to provide sufficient training and registration support prior to the start of each implementation phase. In addition, EPA would also provide technical assistance and support to help states, tribes, and territories make this transition to electronic reporting. EPA will also use this schedule to switch from the ANCR and QNCR noncompliance reports to the NPDES Noncompliance Report (NNCR). See also Section IV.E.5 for a discussion of the waivers for some regulated entities in rural areas without access to broadband internet access.
During Phase 2, states, tribes, and territories that would be required to make changes to their NPDES program through enacting a statute would complete their changes to their NPDES program to implement 40 CFR part 3 (CROMERR), 40 CFR 122.22 (NPDES signature requirements), and 40 CFR part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule [see 40 CFR 123.62(e)]. After these states, tribes, and territories update their NPDES program, all new permits issued or existing permits re-issued after this date for the entire nation shall contain a permit condition requiring the electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. Regulated entities, which would then have the Federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, part 127) in their permit, would start (or continue) electronic reporting to the initial recipient (as defined in 40 CFR 127.27) as of the effective date of their permit. Under both phases, EPA would continue to work with states, tribes, and territories to ensure the electronic flow of state NPDES program data from their systems to EPA's national NPDES data system (
Finally, at the end of Phase 2 (two years after effective date of final rule) EPA will replace the QNCR, ANCR, semi-annual statistical reports with the NNCR. See Sections IV.
During Phase 1, EPA would require regulated entities to electronically send “Phase 1 data” (i.e., DMRs, information from general permit covered facilities for Federally-issued general permits, to EPA, unless the state, tribe, or territory has met the “State Readiness Criteria” (see below). This proposed electronic reporting requirement is in addition to any pre-existing paper-based reporting requirements. EPA would commit to holding monthly teleconferences and webinars with authorized programs during this transition period to assist with data migration and reconciliation.
However, EPA would exclude regulated entities from this CWA request if their authorized state, tribe, or territory meets all of the following “State Readiness Criteria”:
(1) The authorized state, tribe, or territory has 90 percent acceptance rate by data group (
(2) The EPA, state, tribe, territory, or third-party electronic reporting tools used by the NPDES regulated entity meet all of the minimum Federal reporting requirements for 40 CFR part 3 (CROMERR) and 40 CFR part 127 (NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule); and
(3) EPA lists the state, tribe, or territory as the initial recipients for electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities in that state on EPA's Web site. Each authorized program will then designate the specific tools for these electronic submissions from their permittees. These designations are proposed to be made separately for each NPDES data group (see 40 CFR 127.2(c) and 127.27).
EPA encourages all authorized states, tribes, and territories to meet the “State Readiness Criteria,” and will provide support to these authorized programs. This approach will minimize the cases where regulated entities would need to report to their authorized state, tribe, or territory (as required by their NPDES permit) and also to EPA (as required by EPA's CWA request). EPA will also exclude regulated entities from this CWA request if the regulated entity's permit includes all the necessary language to ensure that any electronic reporting done by the permittee meets all of the minimum Federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127). If one or more of the above State Readiness Criteria are not met or if the applicable permit does not include all of the minimum Federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127), then the regulated entity should report to
EPA proposes to make its initial recipient decisions by each authorized state, tribal, and territorial NPDES program and for each data group. For example, if more than 90 percent of NPDES-regulated facilities that are required to submit DMRs in a particular state do so in accordance with the State Readiness Criteria, then all NPDES-regulated facilities in that particular state that are required to submit DMRs would not need to electronically report to EPA under the proposed rule. EPA notes that facilities that are exempt from electronic reporting through use of a temporary waiver would not be included in the 90 percent adoption rate percentage calculation. EPA solicits comment on the 90% threshold that it will use for each state, tribe, and territory by data group. EPA also solicits comment on the appropriate date after the effective date of the final rule when EPA should perform the 90 percent adoption rate percentage calculations prior to the start of the Phase 1 data collection (one year after effective date of final rule).
EPA will work closely with states, tribes, and territories to identify the authorized programs that have met State Readiness Criteria and permittees that have all of the minimum Federal electronic reporting requirements in their permits. EPA will create a search feature on its Web page to identify for each NPDES permittee the data group it does and does not need to report to EPA (
As proposed in 40 CFR 127.27(c), EPA would publish on its Web site and in the
Consequently, regulated entities that must report Phase 1 data should consult their permit to see if it requires electronic reporting in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127. Regardless of whether a federal, state, tribal, territorial, or third-party electronic reporting tool is used by the regulated entity, or whether data is provided to EPA by the state (computer-to-computer transfer), NPDES program data from regulated entities would be included in ICIS–NPDES and be made available to the public through EPA's Web site. EPA has accounted for this increased burden related to the concurrent reporting when a state, tribe, or territory does not meet the State Readiness Criteria in the supporting economic analysis and the ICR. See Section VII for more detailed discussion on savings and costs associated with this proposal. Additionally, during Phase 1, EPA expects states, tribes, and territories with NPDES program authorization to comply with 40 CFR 123.62(e) by making appropriate and timely revisions to their programs by two years after the expected promulgation date of the final rule. That subsection of the regulations indicates that any approved State section 402 permit program which requires revision to conform to this part shall be so revised within one year of the date of promulgation of these regulations, unless a State must amend or enact a statute in order to make the required revision in which case such revision shall take place within 2 years.
As indicated above, existing regulations allow states one or two years (if statutory revisions are necessary) to make the required permit changes to their programs. In order to make these changes more efficiently, EPA is also proposing changes to 40 CFR 122.63 (“Minor modifications of permits”) that would allow states to use the minor modification procedure with the consent of the permittee to change reporting of NPDES program data from a paper process to an electronic process. This proposed change to the minor modification process would ease the burden on states to update existing NPDES permits to include the electronic reporting requirements for regulated entities. Section V also solicits comment on an alternative approach to minor modifications of the permit; in this alternative approach, the consent of the permittee would not be required to convert the permit to require electronic reporting.
Under this proposed rule, all NPDES-regulated entities will electronically report Phase 1 data to their state permitting authority or EPA in compliance with this rulemaking after one year of the effective date of the final rule. This proposed rule would also update the standard permit conditions to include a requirement for NPDES-regulated entities to ensure that their electronic submissions of DMR and other NPDES information (see 40 CFR 127.27) are sent to the appropriate initial recipient, as identified by EPA, and as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b).
During Phase 2, all data required to be reported (see Appendix A to 40 CFR 127) by NPDES-regulated entities under this proposed rule would be electronically reported to the authorized program or EPA. NPDES program data from regulated entities would be included in ICIS–NPDES and be made available to the public through EPA's Web site. It is expect that during Phase 2 all states, tribes, and territories with NPDES program authorization will have made appropriate and timely revisions to their programs. EPA is proposing to retain authority to require regulated entities to send their NPDES program data to EPA when the authorized state, tribe, or territory does not meet the State Readiness Criteria. This proposed electronic reporting requirement is in addition to any pre-existing paper-based reporting requirements specified in permits.
As proposed, during Phase 2, regulated entities should consult EPA's Web site and the
Under this proposed rule, all NPDES-regulated entities will electronically report Phase 2 data to their authorized program or EPA after two years after the effective date of the final rule. NPDES-regulated entities shall identify the initial recipient for their electronic submissions of NPDES information (see 40 CFR 127.27).
Finally, under this proposed rule, all new permits issued or existing permits re-issued after two years after the expected promulgation date of the final rule would contain a permit condition requiring the electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 122.22, and part 127 [see 40 CFR 123.62(e)]. EPA has accounted for this increased burden related to the potential for concurrent reporting when a state, tribe, or territory does not meet the State Readiness Criteria in the supporting economic analysis and the ICR. See Section VII of the preamble for more detailed discussion on savings and costs associated with this proposal.
EPA would also issue a
EPA also notes that it will be providing technical assistance and support to help states, tribes, and territories with this transition to electronic reporting. EPA is also open to considering other options for phasing the collection of the information under this proposed rule. Specifically, EPA would like to hear from authorized NPDES programs that have experience in implementing electronic reporting, especially their experience in phasing the implementation so that it is successful. EPA seeks additional data on alternative options that might reduce implementation costs on authorized NPDES programs and permittees while also preserving the proposed implementation schedule and benefits of electronic reporting.
In this proposal, EPA identified the procedure for identifying the initial recipient of information from NPDES-regulated entities. See 40 CFR 127.27. This procedure requires each authorized state, tribe, or territory to identify the specific NPDES data groups (
The purpose of the initial recipient procedure is to ensure that the authorized state, tribe, or territory receiving NPDES program data from an NPDES regulated entity complies with the CROMERR signatory, certification, and security standards (40 CFR part 3) and the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 127). Built into the proposed procedure is an understanding that EPA will support any authorized state, tribe, or territory that wishes to be the initial recipient for electronically reported NPDES program data and will help the authorized state, tribe, or territory resolve any issues that temporarily prevent it from being the initial recipient of electronically reported NPDES program data.
EPA would review these submissions and publish on its Web site and in the
A state, tribe, or territory that is designated by EPA as an initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2, must maintain this data and share all the required NPDES information with EPA through timely automated data transfers, as identified in 40 CFR 127.21(a)(1)-(5) and in Appendix A to this part, in accordance with all requirements of 40 CFR 3 and 127. Timely means that the authorized state, tribe, or territory submit these automated data transfers (see the data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) to EPA within 30 days of the completed activity. For example, the data regarding a state inspection of a NPDES-regulated entity that is completed on October 15th shall be submitted automatically to EPA no later than November 14th of that same year (
EPA would be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities if the state, tribe, or territory fails to collect data and consistently maintain timely automated data transfers in compliance with 40 CFR part 3 and part 127. The regulatory text in 40 CFR 127.27 lays out the procedure for identifying and correcting problems preventing states, tribes, and territories from being the initial recipient of NPDES data. EPA would continue to work with the Director of the authorized NPDES program to remediate all issues identified by EPA
The following sections identify specific issues on which EPA invites comment. In Section V.A, EPA discusses comment questions regarding the proposed rule. In section V.B EPA commits to publish a supplemental notice after the close of the comment period for this proposal should it receive substantial number of comments that significantly change the direction of this proposed rule. This will allow stakeholders to see how EPA addressed their comments and to provide further input on those sections generating significant number of comments. In Section V.C, EPA summarizes the various approaches identified in Section IV and for which EPA invites comment. In the remaining sections of Section V, EPA identifies other approaches for which EPA invites comment.
Through the Clean Water Act Action Plan Discussion Forum and consultation with states, tribes, and stakeholders, EPA solicited ideas and comments on electronic reporting. EPA identified several misconceptions about the proposed rule. This section of the preamble identifies some of these misconceptions and provides clarification based upon the proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This proposed rule as currently drafted, subject to public comment, requires a conversion to electronic reporting of information from the majority of the NPDES regulated universe and from states, tribes, and territories authorized to implement the NPDES program. As such, this proposed rule will affect hundreds of thousands of NPDES-regulated entities and all states, tribes, and territories. The proposed rule will also impact the public, making more complete NPDES information available nationally for the first time.
Given the large scope of this proposal, EPA commits to offer an additional opportunity for transparency and engagement should we receive public comments that require significant changes to the rule. If that occurs, EPA will issue a supplemental notice with its response to any public comments that prompted a change in direction, so that states, tribes, territories, permittees, and other stakeholders can review and comment on how EPA revised the parts of the proposed rule that generated significant amount of comment. EPA plans to publish the supplemental notice within 180 days after the public comment period for this proposed rule has closed.
Although EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of the proposed rule, there are three specific areas for which EPA is particularly interested in getting comment from states, tribes, territories, permittees, and other stakeholders. The three areas include: governance of the data; phasing the implementation proposed under this rule; and the specific information the rule proposes to collect.
It is important that the governance processes surrounding the management and public release of data be clearly defined. The proposed rule relies on data that is currently required under existing regulations for the NPDES program. It also respects and does not change the role of authorized state, territorial, and tribal agencies as the primary implementors of the NPDES program or as data stewards for NPDES data within their jurisdiction. EPA invites comments from states, tribes, territories, permittees, and other stakeholders on the governance and management of data to be electronically reported to states and EPA under this proposed rule, including data stewardship and use of the information.
Currently the proposed rule has two phases that will be implemented for collecting this information (see Section IV of the preamble for a detailed discussion on the phasing of the implementation of the rule). EPA will be providing technical assistance and support to help states, tribes, and territories with this transition to electronic reporting. EPA is also open to considering other options for phasing the collection of the information under this proposed rule. Specifically, EPA would like to hear from authorized NPDES programs that have experience in implementing electronic reporting, especially their experience in phasing the implementation so that it is successful. EPA seeks additional data on alternative options that might reduce implementation costs on authorized NPDES programs and permittees while also preserving the proposed implementation schedule and benefits of electronic reporting.
The proposed rule lists each data element proposed for electronic reporting. This information can be found in Appendix A of 40 CFR part 127 of the proposed regulation text. The proposed rule explains throughout the preamble why the information is proposed to be submitted electronically. In particular, there is a detailed discussion for each data family by program area that can be found in Section IV of the preamble. Additionally, this proposed rule does not require the generation of new data that is not already required in the existing regulations for the NPDES program.
EPA would like to hear from states, tribes, territories, permittees, and other stakeholders any comments for adding, changing, or deleting data elements from this proposed list.
In Section IV, EPA identified several specific approaches on which comments are invited. These include:
• Taking into account the limitations of broadband availability and technological capabilities, EPA is considering providing a temporary waiver to the electronic reporting requirements for facilities lacking broadband capability or high-speed internet access and invites comments on such an exception.
• EPA invites comment on how to best address the variability in general permits issued by EPA, states, tribes, and territories.
• EPA is considering the elimination of reporting “time” from the annual report for CAFOs [see 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)(vi)]. EPA estimates that the reporting of “date” of discharges is sufficient for permitting and compliance determinations. EPA invites comment on this considered change.
• EPA is not considering requiring the electronic submission of LTCPs as these reports are unique to each POTW. EPA invites comment on this approach.
• EPA invites comment on whether electronic sewer overflow event reports should be limited to sewer overflow events above a de minimis volume.
• EPA invites comment on whether the list of minimum federal data for sewer overflow and bypass events (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) provides sufficient distinction between the different types of sewer overflow and bypass events.
• For the pretreatment reports not identified in this proposed rule, as currently drafted, for electronic submission, EPA invites comment on which other pretreatment reports (if any) EPA should require for electronic submission as electronic documents (
• For the pretreatment reports, EPA is first focusing its efforts on collecting electronically annual reports from control authorities, acknowledging that these reports include summary data from IU reports, and collecting compliance reports from IUs in cities without pretreatment programs. EPA invites comment on whether EPA should re-examine this decision for the final rule.
• EPA invites comment on the phasing out of reports currently required by 40 CFR 123.45 and 40 CFR 501.21, the new provisions for the NNCR, and the retention of existing thresholds in Appendix A to 40 CFR 123.45.
• EPA's VGP currently contains the monitoring, reporting, inspection, operation and maintenance requirements. EPA is not considering using this proposed rule, as currently drafted, to make any changes to NPDES regulations that would be specific to the vessels program. EPA invites public comment on this approach.
• EPA is not considering using this proposed rule, as currently drafted, to make any changes to NPDES regulations that would be specific to the pesticide
• EPA invites comment on whether it should expand electronic noncompliance reporting to other forms of noncompliance [see 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)], besides sewer overflow incidents and bypasses.
• EPA notes that the list of minimum federal data (Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) from states, tribes, and territories only includes construction stormwater inspection data when the authorized program identifies violations and completes a formal enforcement action (
• EPA invites comment on whether CAFO NOIs and NOTs should be included in Phase I of the rule implementation, as currently being considered, or in Phase II.
• EPA is seeking comment on how it should evaluate, update, and revise the lists of pollutants in Appendix A to 40 CFR 123.45. These lists are used to determine Category I (most serious) and Category II noncompliance. EPA's preamble for the final rule for 40 CFR part 123, NPDES Noncompliance and Program Reporting (FR, Vol. 50, No. 165, Monday, August 26, 1985) describes the conventional and nonconventional/toxic pollutants as lists of general types. It was expected that new parameters may be added from time to time. EPA has never revised these lists in part due to the complexity of re-opening the regulation to make such changes. This has resulted in a situation where, the most frequent cause of water impairment, pathogens, (which is directly related to pollutants such as fecal coliform and eColi) are not listed as pollutants that cause a Category I listing in the regulations. This means that a violation of a pathogen effluent limit alone (no matter how severe) is not required to be reported to EPA under 40 CFR 123.45 and, therefore, will not automatically trigger evaluation of the violation for “significant noncompliance (SNC)” status. EPA also seeks comment on eliminating the need for pollutant specific lists such as the current one in Appendix A and instead requiring that all effluent limitations in NPDES permits be considered noteworthy when involving exceedances greater than a certain, specified amount and basing the threshold amounts on whether or not the limit is a water-quality based effluent limit or a technology-based limit.
• In addition, when the 40 CFR 123.45 noncompliance reporting requirement were originally developed, EPA believed that violations of monthly average permit effluents limits were indicative of more serious long term noncompliance problems. However, EPA's thinking has evolved on this point and, in consultation with Regions and States, EPA revised its management tool (i.e., EPA's NPDES Significant Noncompliance Policy) in 1995 to also identify egregious NPDES violations of non-monthly permit effluent limits that meet EPA's criteria. EPA is specifically seeking comment on whether noncompliance reporting of permit effluent limits in 40 CFR 123.45 should be limited to monthly average permit limit violations and those violations that are of a specific magnitude and frequency.
EPA invites comment on the 90 percent threshold, currently considered in the proposed rule, that it will use as one of the State Readiness Criteria for each state, tribe, and territory by data group. EPA also invites comment on the appropriate date when EPA should perform the percent adoption rate percentage calculations prior to the start of the Phase 1 data collection.
Based upon preliminary EPA estimates, the number of facilities covered by NPDES permits to control stormwater discharges related to construction (approximately 200,000 such facilities in any particular year) constitutes a very large percentage of the total universe of NPDES-permitted facilities in any given year. This universe of facilities changes as construction is completed. Based upon existing regulatory requirements,
For these construction sites, NPDES permit coverage is provided through the construction site operator's submission of a notice of intent (NOI) to be covered under a general permit issued by EPA or by the authorized state, tribe, or territory. The NOI information from the prospective NPDES-regulated facilities includes basic information regarding the facility and its discharges, and provides some basis for possible inspections and enforcement by authorized agencies.
In the development of this proposed rule, as currently drafted, EPA has considered whether facility-specific data should be required only for those sites that had been inspected (rather than for the entire universe of such facilities) due to the transient nature of these sites. Based on the 2007 version of EPA's Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS), EPA recommended annual EPA-state goals to inspect at least 10percent of NPDES-permitted construction sites greater than five acres in size (Phase I), and at least 5percent of construction sites which are 1–5 acres in size (Phase II). Adjusting data reporting requirements to only require information on the facilities inspected would provide facility data for a much smaller set of facilities.
In discussions with states about reporting for potential wet-weather facilities such as construction sites, EPA has also considered requiring reporting on an even smaller subset of these construction sites, namely those sites that have been subject to a formal enforcement action, an administrative penalty order, or another informal enforcement action if that informal action addressed significant noncompliance. Closer tracking of these particular facilities would help ensure timely compliance and could help EPA to identify noncompliance patterns by particular companies across watershed or state, tribe, or territory boundaries, or nationally in scope. It is difficult to determine an accurate percentage of such facilities that may be subject to these future actions; however, as a preliminary estimate, EPA expects that only 1percent of such facilities would be the recipients of such enforcement actions in a given year.
In this proposed rule, as currently drafted, every construction site seeking coverage under a NPDES general permit would be required to electronically submit a NOI form. Therefore, this rule would establish the initial universe for which construction site inspections would most likely be performed. There is no way of pre-determining which sites would receive such inspections or which sites will be subject to enforcement actions, so it makes more
Some municipalities that do not have NPDES permits to discharge nonetheless have sanitary sewer systems (SSSs) which discharge their sewage to the collection system of a POTW that has a NPDES permit to discharge. This sewage system discharging to another NPDES collection system or POTW is referred to as a municipal satellite sanitary sewer system. Based upon preliminary EPA estimates, there are over 4,800 such municipal satellite SSSs in the nation. This figure represents approximately 24 percent of the total number of SSSs in the entire nation.
Not all of these satellite systems have applied for and received NPDES permits. Some amount of NPDES information is tracked by states, tribes, territories, and EPA for POTWs which have NPDES permits, particularly for those POTWs which were designated as major permittees. However, information regarding the non-permitted municipal satellite SSSs and their possible impacts is far less complete.
Under CWA section 308, EPA could seek facility-specific information for each municipal satellite SSS facility as a point source; such information would include basic facility information, identification of the receiving NPDES-permitted POTW, incident report information, inspection information, and if applicable, violation information, enforcement information, and limits and monitoring data for each of these municipal satellite facilities. Detailed information regarding overflows from municipal satellite systems is critical to reducing water quality impairments attributable to overflows.
In this proposed rule, as currently drafted, EPA is not considering new reporting requirements on permitting authorities regarding such municipal satellite SSSs. EPA is considering whether EPA's needs may be served by receipt of information for municipal satellite systems which have been subject to a formal enforcement action, an administrative penalty order, or another informal enforcement action if that informal action addressed significant noncompliance, because closer tracking of these particular facilities, whether NPDES-permitted or a necessary party to ensuring compliance under an enforcement action, would help ensure timely compliance and more complete solutions to possible SSO violations. However, more complete information regarding the entire universe of municipal satellite systems may be very useful in evaluating the national compliance status of these facilities and in targeting. EPA invites comment on whether more specific information regarding municipal satellite systems, all or some defined subset, would prove useful and should be required by EPA from the states, tribes, and territories.
As described in Section IV.E.1.e, in the absence of approved local pretreatment programs, EPA, the authorized state, tribe, or territory function as the control authority with the direct responsibility to oversee these industrial users. EPA estimates that there are approximately 1,400 industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs.
Section IV.E.1.e describes the types of reports which categorical industrial users and other significant industrial users are required to provide to the control authority. EPA is considering industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs be required to send the industrial user reports required under 403.12(e) and 403.12(h) electronically to EPA or pretreatment-authorized states, tribes, and territories. These self-monitoring reports will provide information similar to the information contained in DMRs from direct dischargers. Essentially, this would increase the universe for which self-monitoring results are required to be submitted electronically. Electronic submittal of these reports will give states, tribes, territories, and EPA better access to information concerning the pretreatment processes and compliance status of industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs. Comments are invited on this requirement and on whether to expand the requirement for electronic reporting of these reports to all industrial users.
EPA's biosolids regulations (40 CFR part 503) establish the same recordkeeping requirements for all POTWs and Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage (TWTDSs). However, EPA's biosolids regulations only require annual reporting from POTWs with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one million gallons per day, POTWs that serve 10,000 people or more, and Class I sewage sludge management facilities (
EPA invites comment on expanding the biosolids reporting requirements (see 40 CFR 503.18, 503.28, 503.48) to all POTWs and TWTDSs. The increased availability of such biosolids information regarding all POTWs and TWTDSs would provide significant information regarding the effectiveness of the national, state, tribe, and territory biosolids programs, as well as key information regarding the effectiveness and compliance status of the regulated facilities. In particular, EPA notes that the existing reporting requirements apply to only a minority of POTWs and TWTDSs, although they have the vast majority of the flow volume compared to the smaller POTWs and TWTDSs. According to EPA's 2008 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey, there are approximately 3,200 POTWs that have a design flow rate above one million gallons per day and 11,500 POTWs have a design flow rate below one million gallons per day. Consequently, there are many more facilities for which EPA, states, tribes, and territories have little information on hand to determine compliance with EPA's biosolids regulations and no comprehensive way of conveying the biosolids management performance of these facilities to the public. As indicated in the proposed rule as currently drafted, expanding the reporting requirements to all POTWs
Finally, EPA notes that some POTWs use lagoons or impoundments for their wastewater treatment. These POTWs may not be discharging biosolids each year as these lagoons or impoundments are not necessarily annually dredged. Some lagoons or impoundments may be dredged on a frequency of once every five, ten, or more years. EPA invites comment whether to expand the biosolids reporting requirements to POTWs that use lagoons or impoundments and do not perform annual dredging.
This proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, establishes quality assurance requirements to better ensure that the required NPDES data will be provided in a timely, accurate, and complete manner by each NPDES permittee and by each NPDES-authorized state, tribe, and territory.
EPA has suggested establishing timeliness criteria of 30 days for permitting authorities to transmit NPDES data electronically to EPA. Suggested criteria for states, tribes, and territories regarding accuracy (at least 95 percent of the data elements should be identical to data reported) and completeness (at least 95 percent of the expected data elements should be provided for each facility) are based on quality assurance targets identified in existing EPA guidance.
In August 1992, EPA issued the “Permit Compliance System (PCS) Quality Assurance Guidance Manual” as guidance for EPA regional offices and states toward the development of similar quality assurance procedures for PCS data entry. This guidance document described quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) targets for the data entry of the Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) data, the data identified (through the PCS Policy Statement, as amended) from EPA regional offices, states, tribes, and territories for PCS, and described how permitting authorities should develop and implement their own quality assurance plans to ensure that the data provided in PCS was timely, accurate, and complete. Although these criteria were developed as quality assurance guidelines for PCS, the NPDES national data system at that time, these long-established quality assurance requirements would still be valid as criteria for timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of NPDES data that would be required through this proposed rule, as currently drafted, to be provided electronically in a manner fully compatible with EPA's PCS replacement system, ICIS–NPDES. EPA is inviting comment on whether these quality assurance and quality control targets identified in the August 1992 guidance cited above should serve as the basis for similar regulatory requirements in this proposed rule, as currently drafted.
Specifically, the 1992 EPA guidance sets timeliness targets (in numbers of working days since a specific trigger event) for the availability of NPDES data from states, tribes, and territories for specific data families, such as basic facility data, pipe schedule data, limits data, monitoring data, violation data, inspection data, program reports data, enforcement action data, compliance schedule data, etc. As an alternative approach to timeliness criteria identified in this proposed rule, as currently drafted, EPA could instead propose that these timeliness targets in the 1992 EPA guidance be instituted as timeliness deadlines. This approach would better ensure that the NPDES data required under this proposed rule, as currently drafted, would be provided by each NPDES permittee and by each authorized state, tribe, and territory to EPA in a nationally-consistent, timely, accurate, and complete manner fully compatible with EPA's NPDES data system. A few examples of such timeliness deadlines are identified below:
• For basic facility data, this information would be required from the permitting authority within five working days of receipt of an application for an individual NPDES permit;
• For basic permit information, this information would be required from the permitting authority within five working days of the issuance of an individual permit; and
• For enforcement action data, this information would be required from the permitting authority within five working days of the issuance of the enforcement action.
Although electronic submission of NPDES information could certainly occur much more expeditiously for NOI data, DMR data, or program report data, if that data is sent electronically by the NPDES permittee to a permitting authority's electronic reporting system for subsequent submission to EPA, the timeliness requirement for the permitting authority could be that:
• The eNOI data would be available from the state, tribe, or territory to EPA within 5 working days of receipt of the eNOI;
• The DMR data would be available from the state, tribe, or territory to EPA within 10 working days of receipt of the DMR; and
• The program report data would be available from the state, tribe, or territory to EPA within 30 working days of receipt.
EPA invites comment on whether to include QA/QC criteria for timeliness, accuracy, and completeness in the final rule. In addition, EPA invites comment on the alternative timeframes described here.
In 40 CFR 122.63, federal regulations indicate the conditions under which minor modifications to existing NPDES permits could be made upon consent of the permittee. The existing regulations indicate that minor modifications to NPDES permits may be done to correct typographical errors, require more frequent monitoring or reporting, change interim compliance dates, indicate ownership or operational control changes, change new source construction dates, or incorporate conditions of an approved pretreatment program.
EPA is very interested in facilitating the move toward electronic reporting by states, tribes, territories, and regulated entities and has examined the possibility of modifying the existing federal regulations regarding minor modifications to require electronic reporting by NPDES-regulated facilities. By including the incorporation of electronic reporting requirements as a minor modification, states, tribes, and territories could more easily change existing NPDES permits to require electronic reporting, while reducing the paperwork and process time that would normally be associated with modifying a permit. Therefore, in this proposed rule, as currently drafted, EPA has suggested adding, as a minor modification, the incorporation of electronic reporting requirements into existing permits.
EPA invites comment specifically on whether such incorporation of electronic reporting requirements should be identified as a minor modification of a NPDES permit even absent the consent of the permittee. This
As described previously in Sections II.E and III, EPA has recognized for many years the need to better track facility-specific NPDES information nationally, particularly to include nonmajor facilities which have merited increased attention (
EPA has had extensive interactions with states in the design of the ICIS–NPDES system, in the identification of possible ICIS–NPDES required data, and in efforts to develop a draft ICIS–NPDES Policy Statement.
Since FY 2000, EPA has worked with the states in designing a modernized data system for the NPDES program, including the identification of critical data elements. In FY 2002, EPA and 36 subject matter experts from the states developed recommendations identifying specific data needed to successfully implement and manage the NPDES program; these recommendations were distributed to the states and EPA Regions for review.
Since then, EPA has worked closely with its state, tribe, and territory partners in an effort to modernize PCS as a NPDES component of ICIS, ensuring that the system could accommodate the NPDES program data needs identified by EPA and the state subject matter experts in FY 2002. In March 2004, an EPA-state workgroup developed a framework for the content and scope of an ICIS–NPDES policy statement. In addition, the PCS Steering Committee, comprised of EPA and state participants, served as the primary contact in the development of ICIS–NPDES and worked toward the development of the associated draft policy statement.
EPA and authorized states began using ICIS–NPDES in 2006. Currently, all authorized states are either direct users of the ICIS–NPDES system or do some data entry directly and supply some data electronically from their own state databases into ICIS–NPDES. All EPA Regional offices use ICIS–NPDES for direct data entry of information related to their NPDES implementation activities; also, in their capacity as NPDES permitting authorities, they currently provide NPDES information from four states, two tribes, and nine territories or other jurisdictions. EPA has provided extensive training courses to states, tribes, territories, and EPA Regions to ensure a degree of national proficiency and familiarity with ICIS–NPDES. EPA also provides user support, national conference calls and meetings, and a national newsletter to personnel in states, tribes, territories, EPA Regions, and EPA Headquarters.
At the request of the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), the PCS Steering Committee was expanded in late 2005 from 10 to 18 states to include representatives of ECOS and ACWA. In 2006, three face-to-face multi-day meetings were held to discuss the development of a draft ICIS–NPDES Policy Statement, which would specify required data to be entered or otherwise made available by the states to EPA, and the timing considerations for such data entry requirements.
In conjunction with those meetings, issue papers were developed by EPA and by the states, addressing EPA's needs for the data and states' proposals regarding alternative data availability. In an effort to better identify which data were being collected by states (whether or not those data were required to be entered into PCS), ACWA conducted a survey of states regarding each of the proposed required data. The specific states providing each response were not identified to EPA, preserving some anonymity in the responses but also inadvertently making it difficult for EPA to interpret the survey data and determine reasons for the responses. For example, it was not clear whether the fact that a particular state was not collecting biosolids information was because that state did not have the authority to implement and enforce the NPDES biosolids program.
EPA also consulted with in-house subject matter experts and re-assessed and reduced the number of proposed required ICIS–NPDES data, making several of the data elements required to be entered only by EPA Regional offices. Within an EPA-state workgroup organized to examine data entry resources, EPA developed a fairly detailed Excel-based data entry estimate model to determine data entry estimates nationally, for roughly a dozen individual states, for specific NPDES subprograms, and for specific data families or data groupings. Another EPA-state workgroup focused on issues related to possible sequencing of data from specific program areas.
These outreach efforts culminated in the development of a draft ICIS–NPDES Policy Statement issued by EPA for review and comment on April 30, 2007. State comments on that draft did not focus on specifics of the policy statement, or on the merits of particular approaches or data, but rather they raised general concerns regarding resource burden (beyond data entry) and federalism issues (
In December 2007, EPA issued an addendum to the PCS Policy Statement. This addendum identified those ICIS–NPDES data which were considered to be comparable to the required WENDB (Water Enforcement National Data Base) data in PCS, as well as data which are system-required in ICIS–NPDES (the entry of those data is required before the system will save the record). This addendum stated that these ICIS–NPDES data constituted the list of data which EPA expected to be entered by ICIS–NPDES users during the period until a federal regulation on such reporting was promulgated by EPA.
EPA also worked with states on two efforts that were independent of the initial rulemaking, but impact possible implementation of this proposed rule. EPA has implemented the NetDMR tool which can be used to electronically transmit Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) from regulated facilities directly into ICIS–NPDES. This tool has significant impacts on implementation of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, because approximately 90% of the estimated data entry burden associated with this proposed rule is linked specifically to the data entry of DMR information by the states, tribes, and territories.
During a similar timeframe, EPA and authorized programs also implemented the recommendations of an alternatives analysis which assessed the best means
During the rulemaking process, EPA hosted a listening session with states and interested stakeholders in Washington, DC, on October 14, 2008. This session was announced in the
Later in the rulemaking process, EPA conducted a meeting in Washington, DC on March 9, 2009 with representatives from four states. A similar meeting was conducted by EPA in San Francisco on March 13, 2009 with an additional four states. The goal of these meetings was to seek individual state comment on a variety of options under consideration in the rulemaking to effectively reduce potential data entry burden. EPA then conducted two conference calls (on March 18, 2009 and April 8, 2009) with seven additional states to seek comment on those same options under consideration. This series of outreach events provided valuable input from a total of fifteen states from nine EPA regions regarding the feasibility of the implementation options under consideration for this proposed rule.
Beginning in summer 2010, EPA conducted several outreach efforts focused primarily on electronic reporting. These efforts are described below.
On July 13, 2010, EPA conducted a meeting
Subsequent to this meeting, EPA hosted a series of 20 web sessions conducted from July 2010 through July 2012. The goal of these meetings was to provide further opportunity for comment on the merits of the proposed rule. This effort included over 1,000 participants with representation from many states and industry. As a result, EPA obtained valuable input.
During this rulemaking, EPA also conducted additional meetings and consultations in order to comply with various statutes and executive orders that direct federal agencies, including EPA, to coordinate with organizations representing elected officials of states, counties, and municipalities, and consult, as required, with tribes and small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions.
The first of these meetings was held on September 15, 2010, and was attended by 11 state and local government organizations. The focus of this meeting was to comply with Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”) which requires Federal agencies to consult with elected state and local government officials, or their representative national organizations, when developing regulations or policies that might impose substantial compliance or implementation costs on state and local governments. EPA received substantive feedback on the feasibility of the implementation options under consideration for this rulemaking.
Additionally, EPA met with tribal entities to describe the rulemaking effort and to provide an opportunity for discussion in two separate meetings on November 9, 2010 with the National Tribal Caucus, and on November 10, 2010, with the National Tribal Water Council. The National Tribal Caucus meeting was attended by 19 tribal representatives elected on a regional basis, who correspond with tribes in each of EPA's ten regions. The Tribal Water Council consists of 19 tribal water professionals who represent a national tribal perspective. In addition, after mailing information to 563 nationally-recognized tribal entities, EPA conducted follow-up conference calls on December 14 and December 16, 2010.
The focus of these meetings was to provide an additional opportunity for consultation and thus comply with Executive Order 13175, which states that EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement. These calls did not raise any key issues from the participants, and, in particular, the likely availability of electronic reporting was not an issue from the participants.
In concert with these meetings and the series of web sessions, EPA also implemented a Web site in support of the NPDES Electronic Rule. The purpose of the Web site was to provide background information on the rule, status of rule development, announcements of upcoming stakeholder meetings, and a discussion forum with questions and topics.
EPA has also engaged in a dialogue with a State Working Group to help explore the implementation issues related to this proposed rule. This technical working group's focus was to help to identify issues, identify roadblocks to implementing various aspects of the proposed rule, and share information concerning how these issues could be best addressed in this context. EPA worked with ACWA and ECOS to identify a group of 11 states.
From this group's efforts, EPA was able to glean a sense of the concerns of individual states with this proposed rule. The individual states represented in this group supported the concept of electronic reporting and understood why many states would benefit from a rule, but some states expressed concern about the implementation requirements, funding, and available resources. As indicated in previous outreach opportunities, some states in the group requested that EPA explicitly identify the data that will be required and have a strong need for each item to be collected. In addition, some states in the group indicated that they wanted EPA to be cognizant, as EPA drafted the proposed rule, of the varying degrees of state readiness for electronic reporting. EPA has addressed these concerns by some states in the identification of required data (Section IV.B and Appendix A to Part 127), and in the implementation plan (Section IV.I).
Upon proposal of this rule, EPA will provide a comment period and will
EPA would provide technical assistance and support to states, tribes, and territories during the transition to electronic reporting. Outreach from EPA to the states, tribes, and territories may be very useful in the identification of specific needs and the development of such assistance, support, and funding.
EPA anticipates that the State Working Group may elect to continue its efforts through implementation of the rule in another possible phase of work. This proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, includes a phase-in period for the implementation of the rulemaking; as such, the State Working Group may continue to explore implementation issues on a variety of selected topics.
A Presidential memorandum on regulatory compliance, issued on January 18, 2011, made the following observations:
Greater disclosure of regulatory compliance information fosters fair and consistent enforcement of important regulatory obligations. Such disclosure is a critical step in encouraging the public to hold the Government and regulated entities accountable. Sound regulatory enforcement promotes the welfare of Americans in many ways, by increasing public safety, improving working conditions, and protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink. Consistent regulatory enforcement also levels the playing field among regulated entities, ensuring that those that fail to comply with the law do not have an unfair advantage over their law-abiding competitors. Greater agency disclosure of compliance and enforcement data will provide Americans with information they need to make informed decisions. Such disclosure can lead the Government to hold itself more accountable, encouraging agencies to identify and address enforcement gaps.
In September 2011, the Office of Information and Regulatory Analysis (OIRA) issued guidance encouraging agencies to provide individual consumers of goods and services with direct access to relevant information and data sets. The memo focused on “smart disclosure,” defined as the timely release of complex data in standardized formats. The OIRA memo dovetails Executive Order 13563, signed by President Obama earlier in 2011, which encourages agencies to consider alternative regulatory approaches including the “provision of information to the public in a form that is clear and intelligible.”
In this vein, the OIRA memo states: “To the extent permitted by law, and where appropriate in light of government-wide policies . . . agencies should give careful consideration to whether and how best to promote smart disclosure.”
Regulatory approaches harnessing the power of public disclosure to improve performance through public accountability can increase government effectiveness and efficiency and generate a variety of important benefits. Electronic reporting is one such approach. This proposed rule justifies itself on the cost/benefit analysis alone, but many qualitative benefits will also be realized. EPA anticipates that this proposed rule will save money for regulators and the regulated community and will contribute to increased compliance, improved water quality, and a fairer and more level playing field for regulated entities. These benefits are made possible through greater use of 21st century technologies, of which electronic data submission is a cornerstone.
This section describes EPA's expectations, experience, and a variety of publicly accessible studies supporting the conclusion that electronic reporting—alone or as a component of broader monitoring and reporting programs—can improve compliance, reduce pollution, allow for better government and public decision making, and reduce paperwork-related costs for regulators and the regulated community alike. Even where it is difficult or impossible to isolate or apportion a specific share of overall program benefits to an electronic reporting component alone, the available literature, supporting evidence, and program experience all suggest that electronic reporting is often a significant contributor to the overall compliance and efficiency benefits these programs provide. This section also describes benefits from several additional approaches to public reporting of information. Although some of the cases described below do not involve electronic reporting, they all share the key characteristic of providing regulators and the public with performance information more efficiently or directly than was previously possible.
Research and experience suggests that the benefits of making timely and accurate compliance and performance data available—whether through electronic reporting or other approaches—occur through at least two pathways. The first pathway is that, within each regulated entity, it brings information about compliance or discharge performance to the attention of personnel with the authority to address them. If the information indicates problems, those personnel can act promptly to minimize the impact. The associated ability to use performance monitoring and benchmarking information systematically as a regulatory tool has been described as a watershed event enabling and compelling facilities to monitor, compare, and improve their environmental performance.
The second pathway is that by ensuring timely government and public access to compliance and performance information, regulated entities can be provided with powerful incentives to avoid the negative effects of government and public awareness of pollution. An example of this effect appears in the Bennear & Olmstead Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) study.
Electronic reporting can help identify problems that are now hidden in extensive paper reports. In the case of EPA's NPDES program, some states, tribes, and territories are overwhelmed with the volume of data they receive, and are sometimes unable to process all of the reports in a timely manner. Electronic reporting by permittees substantially reduces the need for costly and time-consuming data entry by the states, tribes, and territories. Instead, permittee data will be received in a form that can be applied directly to the information systems, bringing that data into the open in a timely manner. As a result, electronic reporting will allow the states, tribes, territories, and EPA to quickly highlight important information and it will allow government and the public to identify, pursue, and address pollution problems. More accurate and timely data can help facilities and governments identify issues earlier and more accurately, which should save money and improve performance. Electronic reporting has also resulted in better private sector performance in unrelated areas, such as when the financial services sector revises its products and services based on data from industries they service.
Electronic reporting of information facilitates the rapid and automated compilation and analysis of data to identify the most important, serious, chronic violators quickly and efficiently. This helps focus limited government and community resources on the most important compliance problems by targeting enforcement where it is most needed.
Electronic reporting—and the timely and more accurate information it provides—can help provide the public with access to information on the performance of both regulated facilities and governments, and help them make government accountable for results. Electronic reporting also levels the playing field by giving the public, including other regulated entities, information they need in order to determine whether comparable violations are being treated similarly.
Electronic reporting promotes facility-to-facility and government-to-government learning by enabling cross-facility and government benchmarking, comparison of results, and the identification of the most effective compliance and performance strategies, thereby promoting the creation and transfer of innovation. It can help prevent minor self-reported violations from escalating into more serious problems by enabling immediate feedback on those violations.
Electronic reporting also creates a potential for private sector development of reporting tools, as evidenced by the development and commercial success of products such as Tax-Cut and Turbo-Tax.
Electronic reporting can allow the comparison of electronic data with other information to better target government efforts. For example, it could facilitate comparing DMR data with ambient water pollution data to more readily identify the individuals or groups of sources contributing the most pollution in watersheds with impaired water quality. Electronic data can also be compared more readily with other information as a check on data accuracy. For example, the IRS can compare directly-reported taxpayer information with equivalent third-party information from employers or banks. Individuals and corporations know the IRS can make such comparisons, and, as a result, they tend to report more accurately. In a similar vein, EPA could explore potential new electronic reporting-supported options such as cross-checking DMR data with TRI data and data in public complaints.
Electronic reporting has the potential to save cost and effort in simpler and more direct ways, too. One example would be by obviating the need for time-consuming manual data entry, photocopying, and mailing of reports. Also, time and money that might otherwise have been spent correcting errors by facilities and states due to illegible entries and transcription issues could be saved. Immediate electronic feedback alerting or requiring facilities to check and correct decimal point placement and internally inconsistent entries could further save facilities and regulators time and costs. The secondary business costs of having to explain these types of errors to third persons such as financial institutions or the public could also be eliminated.
Finally, governments could avoid wasting their time and money spent addressing apparent “violations” that were actually mistakes, such as someone writing down the wrong number on a form, or entering data incorrectly. Electronic reporting systems can be designed to identify many of these errors for correction during data entry.
As discussed above, the available studies and experiences all suggest that electronic reporting can help promote an array of tangible and significant compliance and efficiency benefits. The remainder of this section describes specific publicly available literature and studies documenting how electronic reporting can enhance the ability of regulators, firms, markets, and the public to access and use compliance or other data to:
• Promote public confidence in regulatory programs;
• Promote accurate and complete discharge data;
• Improve compliance and reducing violations;
• Reduce pollution;
• Compel facilities to monitor, compare, and improve their environmental performance through benchmarking;
• Enhance transparency and accountability to external parties;
• Induce firms to become environmentally cleaner;
• Decrease the time required to compile, verify, and analyze data;
• Reduce the time between when regulators receive data and are able to make it publicly available;
• Facilitate agency auditing and detection of erroneous data without costly site investigations or complex measurement;
• Produce significant efficiency savings (time and resources) while increasing data quality;
• Reduce paperwork-related costs for regulators and regulated community;
• Enable regulators to shift staff resources away from data entry tasks;
• Simplify regulators' ability to cross-reference e-reported data against other data sources to allow errors to be caught and corrected more efficiently; and,
Enable governments, regulated communities, interest groups, and the public to be better informed for decision-making.
Standardized electronic reporting is one component of EPA's Acid Rain Program and contributed to the “largest quantified human health benefits of any federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 [years], with annual benefits exceeding costs by >40 to 1.” It did so by promoting “public confidence in the programs, highly accurate and complete emissions data, and a high compliance rate (>99% overall).”
Under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), the systematic use of performance monitoring and benchmarking as a regulatory tool has been cited as a watershed event enabling and compelling facilities to monitor, compare, and improve their environmental performance. At the same time, it enhances transparency and accountability to external parties.
Several studies have linked the public availability of TRI data to improved compliance and reduced pollution. For example, using a micro-level data set linking TRI releases to plant level Census data, one researcher found that the local and state governmental use of TRI disclosures helps induce firms to become cleaner.
By decreasing the time required for EPA to compile, verify, and analyze data, e-reporting can reduce the lag times from when EPA receives data to when the Agency is able to make it publicly available. TRI electronic reporting, for example, achieves this by reducing costly and cumbersome paperwork for reporters while speeding EPA's ability to make it publicly available.
A prominent study of enhanced disclosure regulations and environmental compliance in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) context linked enhanced disclosure to statistically significant compliance improvements. In that case, the disclosures were made by industry directly to consumers by mail (rather than to the government electronically), but, as is intended in this proposed electronic reporting rule, a key effect was to facilitate the delivery of compliance information to the public so as to motivate and better behavior from the regulated parties responsible who submitted the information. Bennear & Olmstead found that when larger utilities were required to mail annual Consumer Confidence Reports on water supplier compliance pursuant to the 1998 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments reduced total violations by 30%–44%. More severe health violations were reduced by 40–57%.
As discussed in Section III.B.1.a, Ohio EPA launched its electronic discharge monitoring report (eDMR) system and, as of 2011, has achieved a 99% electronic reporting adoption rate by its permit holders. E–DMR systems allow stakeholders to report their discharge measurements online. According to Ohio EPA, based on interviews and data collection, their work demonstrates how electronic reporting in this instance produced significant efficiency savings (time and resources) while increasing data quality. In the opinion of Ohio EPA, this has led to more effective human health and environmental protection through improving its ability to monitor and enforce CWA compliance. (Case Study: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (eDMR) System Reaches 99% Adoption.
The United States Internal Revenue Service's E-file program was also mentioned in Section III.B.1.a.i. According to United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials, electronic reporting of digital data has simplified the Service's ability to cross-reference the e-reported data against other data sources, allowing errors to be caught and corrected more efficiently.
The Exchange Network Return on Investment (ROI) and Business Process Analysis Project, funded by the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), was conducted to better understand the effects Exchange Network technologies have on the quality and efficiency of environmental data exchanges for states, tribes, territories, and local agencies.
The analysis included an in-depth review of the four participating states' specific business processes for up to five different data flows: Air Quality System (AQS); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS);
Overall, the results show a positive return for most of the data flows analyzed. Indeed, all participating states experienced a positive return on their investment in Exchange Network technologies to flow data. The coupling of electronic reporting systems with Exchange Network technologies produced particularly impressive savings.
Electronic reporting of environmental data is being increasingly adopted by states because of the positive environmental and financial benefits it provides. One example is Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ's) eDMR system for wastewater facilities. As Michigan DEQ reports on its Web page, the benefits of the state's electronic reporting system include: (1) Saving compliance costs for wastewater discharge facilities through a streamlined reporting method and readily available computer tools; (2) saving program costs by reducing resources required for managing paper-based DMR reports; (3) improving the accuracy of compliance data by eliminating potential errors that might otherwise be introduced through non-electronic data entry in the database; and (4) improving the DEQ wastewater program's overall effectiveness with faster responses to data analyses, compliance assessment, and decision-making.
Twenty-four states currently have electronic reporting of DMR data, six of which began in 2010 and one of which is still in the testing stage. Of these, 13 states transfer their DMR data for major and nonmajor entities to EPA. Most of these states offer electronic reporting as an option, but have not made it mandatory. Ohio is one exception to the norm. Ohio requires electronic reporting unless there is a verifiable reason why the permittee cannot do it, in which case they can continue to submit paper reports.
States tend to have one of four types of electronically available systems in place: the e2 system (AL, FL, MI, OH, OK, PA, VA); Net DMR (AR, CT, HI, LA, TN, TX, UT); eDMR (IL, IN, MS, NC, WV, WY); or EFIS (ME, SC). Of these four systems, e2 is the oldest, having been implemented in Florida in 2001 and Michigan in 2002. In addition to these four systems, California and Washington have each developed their own unique eDMR systems. The voluntary movement of a large number of states to electronic reporting of DMR data suggests the existence of potential net benefits.
The U.S. Security and Exchange Commission's online system, EDGAR (the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system), performs automated collection, validation, indexing, acceptance, and submittal of forms filed electronically with the SEC. Researchers evaluated the effect of making quarterly financial data available to all market participants at the same time versus the prior hard-copy filing (
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires federal agencies to perform an economic analysis (EA) to give decision makers information to determine that:
There is adequate information indicating the need for and consequences of the proposed action; The potential benefits to society justify the potential costs, recognizing that not all benefits and costs can be described in monetary or even in quantitative terms, unless a statute requires another regulatory approach; The proposed action will maximize net benefits to society (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributional impacts; and equity), unless a statute requires another regulatory approach; Where a statute requires a specific regulatory approach, the proposed action will be the most cost-effective, including reliance on performance objectives to the extent feasible; Agency decisions are based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information.”
Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.”
The EA that the agency prepares should also satisfy the requirements of the “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995” (Pub. L. 104–4). Title II of this statute (Section 201) directs agencies “unless otherwise prohibited by law [to] assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector . . .” Section 202(a) directs agencies to provide a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of a Federal mandate resulting in annual expenditures of $100 million or more, including the costs and benefits to State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Section 205(a) requires that for those regulations for which an agency prepares a statement under Section 202, “the agency shall [1] identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and [2] from those alternatives select the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule.” If the agency does not select “the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome option, and if the requirements of Section 205(a) are not “inconsistent with law,” Section 205(b) requires that the agency head publish “with the final rule an explanation of why the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome method was not adopted.”
The “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (Pub. L. 96–354) requires Federal agencies to give special consideration to the impact of regulation on small businesses. The Act specifies that a regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared if a screening analysis indicates that a regulation will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The EA that the agency
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
EPA has issued internal guidance implementing each of the EO and statutory requirements applicable to the EA. EPA's EA guidance instructs EPA personnel how to proceed, and what factors to take into account. Among other things, that guidance requires an EA of a rule with a multi-year impact to apply discount factors of three percent and seven percent as a way to gauge the sensitivity of the projections and the effects of inflation. The EA for this proposed rule has been conducted following the most recently issued EPA EA guidance. To simplify this summary of the EA, unless otherwise indicated, this document will use only data from the three percent discount version of the analysis. Tables at the end of this section provide summaries of both the three percent and seven percent discount versions.
According to the threshold set out in EO 12866, this proposed rule is not economically significant. The threshold for a finding of economic significance is an economic impact, either costs or savings, of $100 million annually. The EA for this proposed rule estimates the largest annual economic impacts to be $25.2 million in net costs in one year after promulgation of the rule, and $30.1 million in net savings in three years after promulgation of the final rule (estimated based on a 3% discount rate). Because these economic impacts are less than $100 million, this rule is below the economic threshold of a significant federal mandate under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Although this proposed rule does not meet the economic significance threshold, it does include most of the elements that would be required if the threshold were passed—a statement of the need for the rule, an examination of alternatives, and the costs and benefits. For the purpose, the statement of the need is located in Section III, and a description of the alternative approaches that were considered is located at Section IV. The non-monetary benefits were discussed in the first portion of Section VII. The balance of this section summarizes the estimated savings and costs of the selected approach.
The EA for this proposed rule estimates savings and costs over a ten-year period, beginning on the date when the rule would become final. Three years after final rule, applying a 3% discount rate, and using 2012 dollars, the largest annual net savings are $30.1 million in three years after final rule. Those savings continue indefinitely, but at a steadily declining dollar value as a result of discounting. During the ten-year period, the highest annual costs are $25.2 million in one year after the final rule. Annual costs are significantly less in all other years.
Cumulative savings for the ten-year period are $290.2 million while cumulative costs are $69.9 million. As a result the overall economic effect of this rule is a net cumulative savings of $220.3 million over the ten years of the projection.
The proposed rule would reduce the data entry burden on the states, tribes, and territories while increasing the percentage of the NPDES universe for which data is available. Compared to the current reporting guidance, known as WENDB, the proposed rule would reduce the data entry burden on states, tribes, and territories by 25 percent, increase the number of NPDES-regulated facilities for which NPDES data is available to EPA by several hundred percent, and expand the scope of the available data for all NPDES-regulated facilities covered by this proposed rule.
In contrast, a previously considered approach would have expanded the data set and the number of covered permittees, but, still relied on the states, tribes, and territories to supply all of the data. This approach would have expanded the state, tribe, and territory data entry burden by 500 percent.
The main elements of this EA are the reporting universe, reporting frequencies, required data, changes in who reports the data, systems and infrastructure changes to make the reporting possible, and the schedule for implementation.
This proposed rule would change the universe of permit types for which EPA will receive data. As described in Section II, the current reporting guidance instructs the states to provide EPA with data on the major dischargers (6,700 permittees) and nonmajor dischargers with individual permits (38,900 permittees). Some states provide data on a larger section of the permittee universe.
Under this proposed rule, EPA would receive data on virtually the entire permittee universe (over 440,000 permittees, not including pesticides applicators and vessels), as represented in Table VII.1. Due to the large number of stormwater permittees, the EA pays this part of the NPDES program particular attention by modeling the expected number of wet-weather incidents for each state, tribe, and territory.
It should be noted that Table VII–1 shows the types and estimated numbers of permits in each of the applicable categories. Note, however, that some facilities are subject to more than one type of permit or subprogram, in which case they are counted in each applicable group because that is the basis for regulation and reporting. For example, a POTW might have an individual permit as a major facility, a separate stormwater system, a pretreatment program, and be a biosolids generator. Also note that SIUs do not have an NPDES permit but are included in the EA.
Changes in the reportable universe affect virtually every aspect of the EA, including data entry costs, training costs, the need for electronic signatures and training, savings in paper and postage, the impact of dual reporting, and notification to permittees.
Section IV describes how and why the inventory of reportable data is changed by this proposed rule. For the EA, the biggest impacts of the change in reportable data are the costs of enhancing the database structures to store the additional data and the costs of data entry.
Estimating the cost of modifying the databases involves several factors, chiefly the number of additional data elements, the number of categories those data elements fall into (e.g., CAFO, biosolids, DMRs, etc.), the number of data entry screens that will be needed, and the completeness of various state, tribe, territory, and EPA data systems prior to the final rule.
Based on the number of data elements and their planned structure, EPA developed a detailed estimate of its own costs to modify ICIS to accommodate the additional data elements. Because EPA does not have independent estimates of the comparable system costs for each state, tribe, and territory, EPA's estimate of system costs for those NPDES-authorized programs is based on EPA's costs to modify ICIS.
Data entry costs are one of the major aspects of the EA, and involve several additional factors, such as who generates the data, changes in the need for the states, tribes, and territories to enter permittee-created data into an information system, the number of permittees to which each data element applies, the frequency with which each type of data element is reported, the time required to enter each type of data element, and the labor costs associated with data entry.
“Responsibility for creating data” refers to the act of initially determining the value of any particular required data element and writing it on paper or entering it into an electronic storage system. Each data element required by this proposed rule has exactly one creator, although the identity of the creator can be affected by the nature of the permit. For example, DMR data is always created by a permittee, and enforcement data is always created by the permitting authority, but basic facility data might be created by either the permitting authority or the permittee, depending on the type of permit that will be used.
The EA uses a detailed understanding of responsibility for data creation to estimate and assign data entry costs and savings for permittees, states, tribes, and territories.
Under the current system of operations, states, tribes, and territories are responsible for collecting data from their permittees and providing the WENDB data to EPA, and paper submissions are the primary means by which permittees submit data to the states, tribes, and territories. As described in Section II, this means the states, tribes, and territories are required enter large amounts of data created by permittees into the permitting authority's information systems, or into ICIS–NPDES. Several types of reports are affected by this rule, but DMRs comprise a substantial majority of the permittee-created data that the states, tribes, and territories enter into data systems. As a result, a significant portion of the data collected is essentially being entered twice. The first is when permittees commit it to a paper form. The second is when the states enter the permittee-created data into an information system.
One of the chief contributions of this proposed rule is that it virtually eliminates the need for such double entry of data in this sense: When DMRs and other reports are submitted electronically by permittees, these reports can be received electronically by the states, tribes, and territories, inserted directly into the applicable information systems, and shared with EPA through the NEIEN.
The EA sees no difference between the time required for a permittee to fill out a paper form and the time required for them to enter the same data on an electronic form. Therefore, permittee data creation costs and savings are not affected by the move to electronic reporting. The permittees are required to supply the same data, regardless of the media in which is it reported. However, during the transition period, some permittees will incur some additional costs until electronic reporting is required without concurrent hard-copy reporting to the permitting authority. Those costs are estimated to range from zero to $104.64 per report submitted.
The impact on the states, tribes, and territories is very different. Every data element a state, tribe, or territory does not have to enter into a data system is a saving compared to the current mode of operation. This does not mean, however, that every state, tribe, and territory will see the same savings from the rule. Some permitting authorities have already begun shifting to electronic reporting. Thirty-four states have either implemented an eDMR system or are at some point in the process of doing so. Some permitting authorities have also begun moving to e-reporting in other areas, such as NOI. However, participation in most of the state, tribe, or territory e-reporting systems is voluntary, so participation rates are highly variable. Ohio is thought to be the only state with a mandatory eDMR system and they have achieved participation of over 99%. Other states have indicated much lower participation rates, which mean they are bearing the costs of operating both paper-based and electronic reporting systems. The EA includes the best available information on all of these factors.
As described in Section II, the current reporting guidelines require states, tribes, and territories to provide EPA with data for only a portion of the permittee universe. This proposed rule expands the universe of permittees for which required reporting must be shared with EPA, primarily by requiring data on the so-called NPDES subprograms. This is a significant development because subprogram data elements are specific to the permittees in each of the subprogram universes. For example, the data elements applicable to CAFOs apply only to CAFO permittees, biosolids data elements apply only to biosolids permittees and so on. As a result of this and the electronic reporting of data directly from the NPDES-regulated facilities, under this proposed rule the total volume of data does not increase in direct proportion to the larger portion of the permittee universe covered or the
Another factor that affects the overall volume of data being submitted, and therefore the data entry costs and savings, is the variety of reporting frequencies. Reporting frequencies are dictated by the types of reports containing the data elements and the compliance monitoring strategy. DMR data elements are submitted on DMR forms, which are generally submitted monthly, thus explaining why they comprise the largest portion of total data volume, and why eliminating the need for the states, tribes, and territories to enter the data from DMRs produces most of the savings from the proposed rule.
Facility data is submitted on initial permit applications or on NOIs, and might be reviewed and updated every five years when the permit is reviewed for reissuance. A large part of the facility data is never changed. Portions that are subject to change are generally addressed during the permit's reviews.
Permit data, such as limits and limit sets, are established when the permit is issued, and reviewed and possibly revised on a five-year cycle. Permit conditions are seldom revised except during the regular five-year reviews, or as a result of enforcement actions.
Enforcement and compliance data are contained in specialized documents which are created on an as-needed basis. It is possible that some permittees will never have any enforcement actions against them, and therefore very little enforcement data associated with them.
Subprogram data elements can be found on any of the major submissions, but are primarily contained in the applicable annual reports.
Each of the data types and possible submissions has been evaluated and the frequencies assigned for proper mapping into the EA.
Understanding how long it takes to enter data elements is a critical piece of the EA. Nine states were surveyed to develop this information. Each respondent was asked to estimate the time it took them to enter various types of data elements. The respondents were grouped according to whether they were in a direct entry, batch entry or hybrid state, and average data entry times were computed for each data element within each group of states.
The EA uses the data entry times from the survey to estimate how much data entry time states, tribes, and territories will spend entering different types of data elements.
Labor rates for the rulemaking are taken from work produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Several hourly rates are used, depending on the type of work and whether the worker is a government or private sector worker.
As described in Section IV, EPA intends to develop electronic reporting tools for each of the reports covered by this rule—DMRs, NOIs, and program reports. Those EPA-developed tools will be offered to all of the states, tribes, territories, and permittees for their use. The cost of developing those reporting tools by EPA and the infrastructure to accommodate them were calculated and documented in a series of technical reports, and comprise the majority of the EPA HQ implementation costs as reported by the EA. EPA also intends to encourage third-party development of electronic reporting tools. Ultimately each authorized state, tribe, and territory will decide whether to use, and allow their permittees to use, the EPA-provided electronic reporting tools or other tools. Each state, tribe, and territory has the option of adopting one or more of the EPA tools and rejecting the others. However, because EPA is building, and making available, a comprehensive set of tools, the EA does not include any estimate for state, tribe, and territory costs to develop comparable independent tools.
The costs of modifying ICIS and the state, tribe, and territory NPDES data systems are somewhat different. Each of the authorized states, tribes, or territories either has its own data system, or uses ICIS–NPDES. All of these data systems are thought to need some degree of modification to accept the additional data elements, and in the case of state, tribe, and territory data systems, to share that data with EPA. EPA developed an estimate of its costs to modify ICIS. The EA includes those EPA costs, and uses those costs to estimate the cost of database changes in the states, tribes, and territories. The EA uses this approach because EPA does not have detailed information about the data structures in the states, tribes, and territories. The EA does take the available information about state, tribe, and territory data systems into consideration.
All of these expenditures are included in the implementation costs of the rule, most of which are expended by EPA prior to rule promulgation and by the states, tribes, territories, and permittees one year after the effective date of the rule under the implementation schedule described in Section IV.
The EA also estimates marginal operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for EPA and the states, tribes, and territories. Marginal O&M costs are the annual O&M costs, over and above current costs, to support the tools required by the rule.
As described in Section IV, the entire permittee universe is assumed to receive initial notification of the rule by reading the
As described in Section IV, EPA will engage the states, tribes, and territories in a variety of forums to determine which permittees will be required to report directly to EPA under the rule, to notify those permittees of the requirement via the
Throughout the implementation process, EPA and the states, tribes, and territories should coordinate closely to minimize inconvenience to the states, tribes, territories, and permittees, and to ensure that concurrent electronic and hard-copy reporting of the same data by the same facility is minimized during the transition period. Those coordination efforts are described in Section IV. The EA assumes most of that coordination will be accomplished electronically—telephone, email, and webinars—with little or no travel by EPA HQ or the states, tribes, and territories.
In most states, tribes, and territories, permittees must follow the reporting requirements specified in their NPDES permits. And in most states, tribes, and territories, the permits cannot be changed unilaterally—
However, if that approach were used, the rule would not be fully implemented until roughly 2020. Given current technology, it would be unreasonable to delay nearly a decade to achieve the benefits and savings available through electronic reporting. For that reason, the proposed rule uses a preferred two-year implementation strategy, as described in Section IV.I, and does impose some identifiable but modest near-term costs on the states, tribes, territories, and permittees, estimated in the EA.
Permitting authority costs for permit changes are based on the assumption that some states, tribes, and territories will implement those changes with individual “minor modification,” which require separate notifications to, and possible dialog with, each permittee. The EA assumes some states, tribes, and territories will adopt other approaches, such as “mass minor modifications,” which involve the use of a form letter, or changes to statutes. Permittee costs for the permit change are estimated as the time required for them to read and respond to the permit change notification, regardless of its form.
When the rule is fully implemented, EPA would essentially have complete data on almost the entire NPDES universe of permittees. As a result, EPA HQ will have all of the data necessary to prepare the Annual Notice of Non-Compliance, the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report, and the Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report, all currently required from NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and territories by 40 CFR 123.45. For that reason, the rule proposes to replace all of those reports with a single report generated by EPA HQ using the data in the data systems after implementation of the rule. The EA estimates the reduced burden on the states, tribes, and territories as a result of this reporting change.
As described in Section II, the majority of permittee submittals are being sent to the states, tribes, and territories on paper. Each of those submittals therefore requires paper, an envelope, and postage. EPA estimates that there are more than 1 million permittee submittals sent by mail each year.
Converting to electronic reporting under this rule will eliminate paper submittals of the covered reports for the vast majority of permittees. The EA estimates the percentage of permittees that will be required to use e-reporting, the number and mix of reports they submit annually, as well as the number of pages in each report, and the required postage.
Instituting electronic reporting will entail some effort from the permittees. The EA assumes that every permittee will have to take certain steps in order to begin reporting electronically, whether they report directly to EPA or to their respective state, tribe, or territory. Permittees that are already reporting electronically will most likely not incur any additional costs at this time, but EPA does not have information as to which permittees are reporting electronically, and therefore has made the simplifying assumption that all permittees are affected.
There are some differences in the costs to different permittees, based on the activities they are engaged in, and these differences have been included in the EA. All permittees will need to register with CDX. All permittees reporting anything other than NOIs will also need to have a CROMERR service agreement. Permittees that are required to submit DMRs will need DMR training. The EA assumes the training will be conducted by webinar. The EA estimates implementation costs for individual permittees of $258 or less.
As described in Section IV, each state, tribe, and territory, for each report or NPDES data group, will be evaluated against several criteria to determine whether its permittees will be required to electronically submit their reports to the authorized program or to EPA directly. If permittees are required to begin reporting directly to EPA, the EA assumes that they will also be required to continue hard-copy reporting to the state, tribe, or territory as stipulated in their NPDES permit. For that reason, the EA estimates the additional effort required by the affected permittees to create the second submittal at $105 or less per type of submittal. The EA uses the implementation schedule to estimate when the states, tribes, and territories will complete their own conversion to electronic reporting and the permittees will be released from reporting directly to EPA.
The EA does not attempt to estimate the costs the states, tribes, and territories will incur to revise their statutes or regulations to implement the changes required by this proposed rule.
The following tables summarize the EA cost and savings findings using the 3% (Table VII–2) and 7% (Table VII–3) discount rates as required by EPA's EA guidance. The entire EA uses 2012 dollars.
Each table is followed by a graph showing the annual costs and savings in bar form, and the cumulative costs and savings in line form. The point at which the two lines cross, sometimes referred to as the breakeven, is the point at which cumulative savings exceed cumulative costs.
There are both qualitative and quantitative benefits associated with this proposed rule. EPA has estimated some of the benefits of this proposed rule by performing calculations based on: The reporting universe; reporting frequencies and required data; changes in who reports the data; systems and infrastructure changes to make the reporting possible; and the schedule for implementation. Using a 3% discount rate, and 2012 dollars, the annual total net benefits associated with reduced paperwork and management of information are approximately $29 million, with 97% of those savings going to the states, tribes, and territories, due to approximately a 25% decrease in the amount of information they will be required to enter into data systems.
In this section of the preamble, EPA described the qualitative benefits such as improved compliance, reduced pollution, allowing for better government and public decision making but was unable to monetize these benefits,
The cost of implementing the proposed rule in the first three years after the effective date is approximately $51.0 million. The cost is estimated to drop to $2.9 million per year after that time period, when all regulated facilities will be converted to electronic reporting. However, two years after rule promulgation, annual savings greatly outweigh annual costs, by approximately $29 million per year.
Also, the threshold for a finding of economic significance is an economic impact, either costs or savings, of $100 million or more annually. The economic analysis for this rule estimates the largest annual net cost to be $25.2 million one year after the effective date
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action,” due to novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB's recommendations are documented in the docket for this action.
In addition, EPA prepared a detailed analysis of the potential costs, savings, and benefits of this action. That analysis, the “Economic Analysis of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Proposed Rule,” can be found in the EPA docket, and is summarized in Section VII.
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
EPA is proposing this regulation to better utilize current technology to ensure that facility-specific information under the Clean Water Act's (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is submitted to EPA, states, tribes, and territories on a nationally timely, consistent, accurate, and complete basis for national program management, oversight, and transparency. This regulation would require that most of this NPDES information be submitted electronically by the regulated facilities; this information will be supplemented by required information regarding NPDES implementation activities by EPA, states, tribes, and territories authorized to implement the NPDES program.
The projected burden and cost of the regulation are summarized in Table VIII.1. Note that, consistent with the Information Collection Request (ICR), these estimates reflect the net burden and cost to regulated facilities and states, tribes, and territories over the first three years following promulgation of the rule. Although the proposed rule will result in long-term net burden reduction and savings, the burden [defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)] and cost associated with initial investment for electronic reporting to EPA for regulated facilities, training, one-time provision of facility information to EPA, data reconciliation, and data entry for states, tribes, and territories will initially outweigh burden reduction and cost savings in the first three years. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0274. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is the government of a city, county, town, school districts, or special districts with a population of less than 50,000 people; or (3) a small organization that is any “not-for-profit enterprise which is
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are small businesses (e.g., industrial sectors, electricity generating facilities, and agricultural sectors) and small governmental jurisdictions (e.g., POTWs operated by municipalities). We have determined that 108,036 small entities (100 percent of the small entities considered in this analysis) will experience an impact of less than 1 percent of revenues.
Note that fewer facilities are considered in the small entity analysis than were estimated as the affected universe for the proposed rule (see Chapter Two of the Economic Analysis). Due to the magnitude and diversity of facilities and sectors affected by this rule, it was not possible to conduct a detailed analysis of parent entity-specific impacts. Because small entity status is based on industrial sector, the small entity analysis required data sources where industry sector (NAICS codes) of each facility could be identified. Although not a complete inventory of all potentially affected facilities, the universe of facilities currently in ICIS–NPDES and PCS was used. The assumption is made that facilities affected by the proposed rule but not currently in ICIS–NPDES and PCS would experience small entity impacts similar to the facilities currently in ICIS–NPDES and PCS.
Although this proposed rule, as currently drafted and subject to public comment, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. In fact, this rule creates annual savings for small entity analyses through elimination of mailing and postage costs.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. In order to determine the burden on states, tribes, and territories, the workgroup conducted an economic analysis of what the cost may be. The analysis examined implementation using various options including the potential burden to state, tribal, and territorial governments. Preliminary indications suggest that the rule would not only cost states, tribes, territories, and local governments well below the threshold of $100 million, it will actually result in cost savings over time. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements Section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although this proposed rule will impose electronic reporting requirements on small governments such as municipalities as well as tribes, EPA does not expect these impacts to be substantial or sufficiently unique to meet the UMRA standards. According to EPA's Interim Small Government Agency Plan, actions have a significant impact if the cost is above $100 million. As stated above, EPA does not expect this proposed rule to exceed that threshold. EPA guidance states that an action could uniquely affect small governments if it disproportionately affects small governments, requires the hiring of experts, requires sophisticated or expensive equipment, or requires offsite training. Preliminary small entity screening analysis for this proposed rule indicates that the cost to any of these entities, and additional requirements, will not exceed 1 percent of total costs. Additionally, although some computer access would be needed to comply with this rule unless a waiver is obtained, this proposed rule will not require purchase of sophisticated or expensive equipment. Furthermore, the proposed rule will not require significant offsite training; training associated with the proposed rule will be offered on-line by EPA rather than offsite.
Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism implications, that impose substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed action. In addition, under section 6(c) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism implications and that preempts state law, unless the Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed action.
EPA has concluded that this action may have federalism implications because it will impose electronic reporting requirements on states to provide certain NPDES information to EPA. However, because the largest annual impact on states is $12.0 million (occurring within the first year after the effective date), this action will not exceed the threshold of $25 million per year annually, nor will it preempt state law. Thus, the requirements of Sections 6(b) and 6(c) of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this action.
Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted with state and local officials
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials. EPA will continue to consult with state and local officials throughout the process of developing the proposed and final action to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. In addition to stakeholder outreach, EPA will contact elected representatives as well as appropriate organizations to ensure compliance with Executive Order 13132.
Subject to Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA may not impose requirements not required by statute unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a Tribal Summary Impact Statement (TSIS).
EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments nor will it preempt tribal law. Although no tribes have yet received approval from EPA to implement an authorized NPDES program, this proposed rule will impose electronic reporting requirements on tribal facilities and on facilities operating on tribal lands.
EPA consulted with tribal representatives in developing this rule via conference calls and webinars with the National Tribal Caucus and National Tribal Water Counsel in November 2010. For additional information, see Section VI. No concerns were raised during those consultations.
In addition, EPA mailed information to 563 tribes regarding an opportunity to participate in two additional tribal outreach efforts in December 2010. Again, during these conference calls, no concerns were raised by participants during those consultations.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5–501 of the executive order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and it is not a significant energy action.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rulemaking involves environmental monitoring or measurement. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement System (“PBMS”), EPA proposes not to require the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use of any method that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria specified.
The following are data standards that EPA recommends for use in this regulation:
EPA proposes to use the following data standards which were developed by the Exchange Network Leadership Council (ENLC), which governs the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN). The ENLC identifies, prioritizes, and pursues the creation of data standards for those areas where information exchange standards will provide the most value in achieving environmental results. The ENLC involves tribes and tribal nations, state, and federal agencies in the development of the standards. More information about ENLC is available at
Executive Order (EO) 12898 [59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)] establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This proposed rule offers substantial environmental justice benefits. As described in the context of non-monetary benefits, discussed in Section VII.A and described below, the proposed rule would significantly increase transparency and access to crucial information that is relevant to the protection of the health and environment of minority, low income, and tribal populations.
Pollution sources addressed by the NPDES electronic reporting rule may release disease-causing pathogens, nutrients, or other contaminants that threaten public health, leading to public advisories against fishing and swimming. Disadvantaged and underserved communities are likely to suffer a wide range of environmental burdens based on their differential proximity and exposure to environmental hazards from these pollution sources. Analyzing cumulative effects on a community from multiple stressors allows a more realistic evaluation of a community's risk to pollutants. For example, medical professionals can improve their capacity to identify the cause of acute and chronic disease symptoms through awareness of environmental exposures, thereby improving diagnosis, treatment and prevention. Improved access to NDPES data on releases, both permitted and unpermitted, would thus help to improve the health of minority, low-income, and tribal populations.
The proposed rule will also support meaningful participation by potentially impacted community members in regulatory proceedings, including permitting and compliance, designed to improve the ability of EPA, states, tribes, and territories to protect and preserve water quality. Regarding permitting, electronic notice of intent (eNOI) will provide minority, low-income and tribal populations with information in a timely manner to assess the need for and mechanisms to seek public hearings and submit comments on NPDES permits proposed in their community. It will also facilitate their understanding of multiple NPDES discharges into the same water body which may affect permit limits. Regarding compliance, electronic discharge monitoring reports (eDMRs) will enable minority, low-income and tribal populations to determine whether permit limits have been violated and the length of time of such violations. In turn, this information can help these populations pursue appropriate recourse with regulatory agencies.
Ultimately, increasing the availability and transparency of information resulting from this rule will enable overburdened communities faced with these water pollution issues to be better informed to engage in decision-making associated with the regulation of sources, and to take action to reduce risk.
Although computer access to such information may be problematic in some situations, the rule will ensure that the information will be publicly available on-line and more accessible than it was in the past, when the information was only submitted in hard-copy form; this information would also be available through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
Administrative practice and procedure, Electronic reporting requirements, Water pollution control.
Administrative practice and procedure, Compliance monitoring, Enforcement program and activities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
Administrative practice and procedure, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sewage disposal.
For the reasons cited in the preamble, title 40, chapter I is proposed to be amended as follows:
The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
(e)
The revised text reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(15) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) The value of the rainfall erosivity factor (“R” in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) is less than five during the period of construction activity. The rainfall erosivity factor is determined in accordance with Chapter 2 of
(C) For all certifications submitted in compliance with paragraphs (b)(15)(i)(A) and (b)(15)(i)(B) of this section after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable POTW permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], all certifications submitted in compliance with this section shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127, as well as with any additional requirements imposed by the Director.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Submit the signed certification to the NPDES permitting authority once every five years. For all certifications submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable POTW permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR part 127], all new and renewed certifications submitted in compliance with this section shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127, as well as with any additional requirements imposed by the Director.
4. Amend § 122.28 by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(v) and (b)(2)(vi) of this section, dischargers (or treatment works treating domestic sewage) seeking coverage under a general permit shall submit to the Director either a written or electronic notice of intent to be covered by the general permit. For all notices of intent submitted to the Director of an EPA-administered NPDES program after [one year after the effective date of 40 CFR Part 127], or if required by the applicable general permit on or before [one year after the effective date of 40 CFR Part 127], all new and renewed notices of intent submitted in compliance with this section shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127, as well as with any additional requirements imposed by the Director. For all notices of intent submitted to the Director of an NPDES-authorized program (excluding EPA-administered NPDES programs) after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable general permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], all new and renewed notices of intent submitted in compliance with this section shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127, as well as with any additional requirements imposed by the Director.
(ii) The contents of the notice of intent shall be specified in the general permit and shall require the submission of information necessary for adequate program implementation, including at a minimum, the legal name and address of the owner or operator, the facility name and address, type of facility or discharges, and the receiving stream(s). General permits for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity from inactive mining, inactive oil and gas operations, or inactive landfills occurring on Federal lands where an operator cannot be identified may contain alternative notice of intent requirements. All notices of intent shall be signed in accordance with § 122.22. Notices of intent for coverage under a general permit for concentrated animal feeding operations must include the information specified in § 122.21(i)(1) and the applicable information in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 127, including a topographic map.
(g) * * *
(3)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(l) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) or forms provided or specified by the Director for reporting results of monitoring of sludge use or disposal practices. For all monitoring results submitted after [one year after the effective date of 40 CFR Part 127], or if required by the applicable permit on or before [one year after the effective date of 40 CFR Part 127], all monitoring results shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127, as well as with any additional requirements imposed by the Director.
(6) * * *
(i) The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment. Any information shall be provided orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. A written or electronic submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written or electronic submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance (including, for discharge violations, the type, volume, and latitude and longitude of the discharge, and name of the waterbody most likely to receive the discharge) and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times (including the date and time of discovery, and the duration of the noncompliance event), and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. For noncompliance events related to combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or bypass events, these submissions shall identify the data described above (with the exception of time of discovery) as well as the type of event (combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or bypass events), discharge volumes untreated by the POTW's treatment works, and whether the noncompliance was related to dry or wet weather. All noncompliance events related to combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, or bypass events occurring after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be reported electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127, and any additional requirements imposed by the Director.
(7)
(9)
(m) * * *
(3)
(ii)
(c)
(e) * * *
(4)
(vi) Summary of all manure, litter and process wastewater discharges from the production area that have occurred in the previous 12 months, including, for each discharge, the date of discovery, duration of discharge, and approximate volume; and
(a) In addition to conditions required in all permits (§§ 122.41 and 122.42), the Director shall establish conditions, as required on a case-by-case basis, to provide for and ensure compliance with all applicable requirements of CWA and regulations. These shall include conditions under §§ 122.46 (duration of permits), 122.47(a) (schedules of compliance), 122.48 (monitoring), electronic requirements of 40 CFR Part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation) and 40 CFR Part 127 (Electronic Reporting Requirements for the NPDES Program), and, for EPA permits only, 40 CFR 122.47(b) (alternates schedule of compliance) and § 122.49 (considerations under Federal law).
(i) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (i)(4) and (i)(5) of this section, requirements to report monitoring results shall be established on a case-by-case basis with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the discharge, but in no case less than once a year. For sewage sludge use or disposal practices, requirements to monitor and report results shall be established on a case-by-case basis with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the sewage sludge use or disposal practice; minimally this shall be as specified in 40 CFR Part 503 (where applicable), but in no case less than once a year. All monitoring results submitted after [ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable permit on or before [ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127 and any additional requirements imposed by the Director.
(c) Applicable reporting requirements based upon the impact of the regulated activity and as specified in 40 CFR Part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation), § 122.44, and 40 CFR Part 127 (Electronic Reporting Requirements for the NPDES Program). Reporting shall be no less frequent than specified in § 122.44.
(f) Allow the incorporation of electronic reporting requirements (to replace paper reporting requirements) including those specified in 40 CFR Part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation) and 40 CFR Part 127 (Electronic Reporting Requirements for the NPDES Program).
(c) Permittees that wish to terminate their permit shall submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to their permitting authority. All NOTs submitted to the Director of an EPA-administered NPDES program after [ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable permit on or before [ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127 and any additional requirements imposed by the Director. All NOTs submitted to the Director of an NPDES-authorized program (excluding EPA-administered NPDES programs) after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the applicable permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR Part 3, § 122.22, and 40 CFR Part 127 and any additional requirements imposed by the Director.
The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
(g) A state, tribe, or territory that newly seeks to implement an NPDES program after [90 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 127] shall identify in its application whether the state, tribe, or territory is requesting to be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities for specific NPDES data groups (see 40 CFR 127.2(c) and 127.27). In this application, the state, tribe, or territory shall identify the specific NPDES data groups for which the state, tribe, or territory will be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities and how the electronic data system of the state, tribe, or territory will be compliant with 40 CFR Part 3, § 123.26, and 40 CFR Part 127.
(b) * * *
(3) Provisions specifying the frequency and content of reports, documents and other information which the State is required to submit to EPA. The State shall allow EPA to routinely review State records, reports, and files relevant to the administration and enforcement of the approved program. State reports may be combined with grant reports where appropriate. These procedures shall also implement the requirements of §§ 123.41(a) and 123.43 and 40 CFR Part 127 (including the required data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 127).
(a) * * *
(46) 40 CFR part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation) and 40 CFR part 127 (Electronic Reporting Requirements for the NPDES Program).
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(b) State programs shall have inspection and surveillance procedures to determine, independent of information supplied by regulated persons, compliance or noncompliance with applicable program requirements. The State shall implement and maintain:
(1) An automated, computerized system which is capable of identifying and tracking all facilities and activities subject to the State Director's authority and any instances of noncompliance with permit or other program requirements (e.g., identifying noncompliance with an automated, computerized program to compare permit limits to reported measurements). State programs shall maintain a management information system which supports the compliance evaluation activities of this part (e.g., source inventories; compliance determinations based upon discharge monitoring reports, other submitted reports, and determinations of noncompliance made from inspection or document reviews; and subsequent violation notices, enforcement actions, and penalties) and is compliant with 40 CFR part 3 (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation) and 40 CFR part 127 (Electronic Reporting Requirements for the NPDES program). State programs may use EPA's NPDES national data system for their automated, computerized system;
(2) * * *
(ii) Verify the accuracy of information submitted by permittees and other regulated persons in reporting forms and other forms supplying monitoring data;
(iii) Verify the adequacy of sampling, monitoring, and other methods used by permittees and other regulated persons to develop that information; and
(iv) Protect surface waters and public health.
(e) * * *
(1) Maintaining a comprehensive electronic inventory of all sources covered by NPDES permits and an electronic schedule of reports required to be submitted by permittees to the State agency;
(f) A state, tribe, or territory that is designated by EPA as an initial recipient of electronic NPDES information, as defined in § 127.2, from NPDES-regulated entities shall maintain this data and share all the required NPDES information with EPA through timely data transfers in compliance with all requirements of 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 (including the required data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). Timely means that the authorized state, tribe, or territory submits these data transfers (see the data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) to EPA within 30 days of when the state, tribe, or territory completed the activity or received a report submitted by a regulated entity. For example, the data regarding a state inspection of an NPDES-regulated entity that is completed on October 15th shall be submitted automatically to EPA no later than November 14th of that same year (e.g., 30 days after October 15th). EPA shall become the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities if the state, tribe, or territory does not consistently maintain these timely data transfers or does not comply with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127. See 40 CFR 127.2(b) and 127.27 regarding the initial recipient.
(a) Any information obtained or used in the administration of a State program shall be available to EPA upon request without restriction. This includes the timely data transfers in compliance with all requirements of 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 (including the required data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127). If the information has been submitted to the State under a claim of confidentiality, the State must submit that claim to EPA when providing information under this section. Any information obtained from a State and subject to a claim of confidentiality will be treated in accordance with the regulations in 40 CFR part 2. If EPA obtains information from an authorized state NPDES program, which is not claimed to be confidential, EPA may make that information available to the public without further notice. Timely means that the authorized state, tribe, or territory submits these data transfers (see the data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127) to EPA within 30 days of when the state, tribe, or territory completed the activity or received a report submitted by a regulated entity. For example, the data regarding a state inspection of an NPDES-regulated entity that is completed on October 15th shall be submitted automatically to EPA no
(d) Any State permit program shall keep such records and submit to the Administrator such information as the Administrator may reasonably require to ascertain whether the State program complies with the requirements of CWA or of this part. This includes the timely data transfers in compliance with all requirements of 40 CFR part 127 (including the required data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127).
EPA shall prepare public (quarterly and annual) reports as set forth here from information that is required to be submitted by NPDES-regulated facilities and the State Director.
(a)
(1)
(i) A stratified list of NPDES-regulated entities in violation, including non-POTWs, POTWs, Federal permittees, major facilities, and nonmajor facilities, as well as a list of CWA point sources that did not obtain NPDES permits authorizing discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States.
(ii) For each identified NPDES point source in violation and with discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States:
(A) The name, location, and permit number or other identification number, if a permit does not exist.
(B) Information describing identified violation(s) that occurred in that quarter, including the date(s) on which violation(s) started and ended (if applicable). Where applicable, the information shall indicate the pipe, parameter, and the effluent limit(s) violated. Violations shall be classified as Category I and II as described in § 123.45(a)(2).
(C) The date(s) and type of formal enforcement and written informal enforcement action(s) taken by the Director to respond to violation(s), including any penalties assessed.
(D) The status of the violation(s) (e.g., corrected or continuing, and the date that the violation(s) was resolved), which can be reported by linking violations to specific enforcement actions, or tracking noncompliance end dates.
(E) Any optional details that may help explain the instance(s) of noncompliance as provided by the Director or EPA.
(F) All violations shall be reported in successive quarterly reports until the violation(s) is documented as being corrected (i.e., the regulated entity is no longer in violation). After a violation is reported as corrected in the NNCR, that particular violation will not continue to appear in subsequent quarterly reports, although it will appear in the relevant annual report.
(G) If the permittee or discharger is in compliance with an enforcement order, but has not yet achieved full compliance with permit conditions and/or regulations and has no new, additional violation(s), the compliance status shall be reported as “resolved pending” in the NNCR. The permittee/discharger will continue to be listed on the NNCR until the violation(s) is documented as being corrected.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(3) EPA shall provide an easy-to-use interface to facilitate public access, use, and understanding of the NNCR, including the ability to sort violations by duration, severity, frequency, detection method (e.g., self-reported effluent, monitoring, inspection), flow and pollutant loadings, type of discharger, waterbody receiving the discharge, proximity to impaired waters, and category of violation (I or II). EPA shall exclude from public release any confidential business information or enforcement-sensitive information associated with the NNCR.
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i) The number of NPDES permittees;
(ii) The number inspected by on-site inspections;
(iii) The number reviewed in which permitted limits were compared to measured data to determine violations;
(iv) The number evaluated by other, off-site compliance monitoring activities;
(v) The number with any violations;
(vi) The number with Category I violations;
(vii) The number receiving paper or electronic written informal enforcement actions;
(viii) The total number receiving formal enforcement actions with a compliance schedule;
(ix) The total number receiving a penalty assessment;
(x) The total amount of penalties assessed; and
(xi) The number of permit modifications extending compliance deadlines more than one year.
(c)
(d)
(2) EPA shall publish the NNCR in electronic form within two months after the end date of the calendar quarter:
This appendix describes the criteria for reporting Category I violations of NPDES permit effluent limits in the NPDES non-compliance report (NNCR) as specified under 40 CFR 123.45(a)(2)(C). Any violation of an NPDES permit is a violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for which the permittee is liable. As specified in 40 CFR 123.45(a)(2), there are two categories of noncompliance, and the table below indicates the thresholds for violations in Category I. An agency's decision as to what enforcement action, if any, should be taken in such cases, shall be based on an analysis of facts, legal requirements, policy, and guidance.
The categorization of permit effluent limits depends upon the magnitude and/or frequency of the violation. Effluent violations shall be evaluated on a parameter-by-parameter and outfall-by-outfall basis. The criteria for reporting effluent violations are as follows:
Violations of monthly average effluent limits which exceed or equal the product of the Technical Review Criteria (TRC) times the effluent limit, and occur two months in a six-month period must be reported. TRCs are for two groups of pollutants.
Chronic violations must be reported in the QNCR if the monthly average permit limits are exceeded any four months in a six-month period. These criteria apply to all Group I and Group II pollutants.
The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
(a) This part, in conjunction with the NPDES reporting requirements specified in 40 CFR parts 122, 123, 403, and 503, specifies the requirements for electronic reporting of information by NPDES permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs, to EPA or the states, tribes, or territories that have received authorization from EPA to implement the NPDES program. This part, in conjunction with 40 CFR parts 123 and 501, also specifies the requirements for electronic reporting of NPDES information to EPA by the states, tribes, or territories that have received authorization from EPA to implement the NPDES program.
(b) These regulations are not intended to preclude states, tribes, or territories from developing and using their own NPDES data systems. However, the states, tribes, and territories shall ensure that the required NPDES information regarding their permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities and required NPDES information electronically submitted by NPDES permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs is then shared electronically with EPA in a timely, accurate, complete, and nationally-consistent manner fully compatible with EPA's national NPDES data system.
(c) Under 10 U.S.C. 130e, the Secretary of Defense may exempt Department of Defense “critical infrastructure security information” from disclosure under FOIA. NPDES program data designated as critical infrastructure security information in response to a FOIA request will be withheld from the public. In the instance where an NPDES program data element for a particular facility is designated as critical infrastructure security information in response to a FOIA request, a separate filtered set of data without the redacted information will be shared with the public; however, all NPDES program data will continue to be provided to EPA and the authorized state, tribe, or territorial NPDES program.
(a) The definitions in 40 CFR parts 122, 403, 501 and 503 apply to all subparts of this part.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) NPDES-regulated facilities shall electronically submit information for these NPDES reports (if such reporting requirements are applicable):
(1) Discharge Monitoring Report [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)];
(2) Biosolids Annual Program Report [40 CFR part 503];
(3) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Annual Program Report [40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)];
(4) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Report [40 CFR 122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c)];
(5) Pretreatment Program Annual Report [40 CFR 403.12(i)]; and
(6) Sewer Overflow and Bypass Incident Event Report [40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)].
(b) Facilities seeking coverage under an NPDES general permit, or indicating that such general permit coverage is not needed under existing regulations, shall electronically submit information for these NPDES notices, certifications, and waivers (if such reporting requirements are applicable):
(1) Notice of intent (NOI) to discharge by facilities seeking coverage under a general NPDES permit (rather than an individually-issued NPDES permit), as described in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2);
(2) Notice of termination (NOT), as described in 40 CFR 122.64;
(3) No exposure certification (NEC), as described in 40 CFR 122.26(g)(1)(iii); and
(4) Low erosivity waiver (LEW) as described in Exhibit 1 to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15).
(c) Industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs shall electronically submit this information (if such reporting requirements are applicable):
(1) Self-monitoring pretreatment-related information, as described in 40 CFR 403.12(e) and 403.12(h).
(2) [Reserved]
(d) Specific data elements that are required to be submitted electronically by NPDES-regulated facilities are identified in Appendix A to this part.
The signatory and certification requirements identified in 40 CFR part 3 and 40 CFR 122.22 and 403.12(l) shall also apply to the electronic submission of NPDES information by NPDES permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs, as required in accordance with this part and Appendix A of this part.
(a) Primary responsibility for the quality of the information provided electronically in accordance with this part by the NPDES permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs rests with the owners and operators of those facilities. Facilities shall use quality assurance and quality control procedures to ensure the quality of the NPDES information submitted in accordance with this part.
(b) NPDES information required under this part from the NPDES permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs shall be submitted in accordance with the data quality requirements specified in § 127.14.
After [THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], each NPDES permittee, facility seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial user located in a city without an approved local pretreatment program, if required to submit the types of information specified in § 127.11, shall comply with all requirements in this part and electronically submit all applicable NPDES information identified in Appendix A to this part in the following nationally-consistent manner:
(a) Timely, in the electronic submission to the appropriate initial recipient, as defined in § 127.2(b), of NPDES information described in § 127.11 and in Appendix A to this part, including but not limited to this information:
(1)
(2)
(b) Accurate, means identical to the actual measurements taken;
(c) Complete, means all required data elements (see Appendix A to this part) are electronically submitted to the data system of the initial recipient, as defined in § 127.2(b); and
(d) Consistent, means all required data elements (see Appendix A to this part) are electronically submitted in compliance with EPA data standards and in a form (and measurement units) that is fully compatible with EPA's national NPDES data system.
(a) Temporary waivers from electronic reporting may be granted by the regulatory authority (EPA, or states, territories, and tribes that have received authorization to implement the NPDES program), in accordance with this section and § 127.24, to NPDES permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs.
(1) Each temporary waiver shall not extend beyond one year. However, the reporting facility may re-apply for a temporary waiver. Temporary waivers from electronic reporting may be granted if the reporting facility is physically located in a geographic area (i.e., zip code or census tract) that is identified as under-served for broadband internet access in the most recent National Broadband Map from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
(2) To apply for such a temporary waiver, the appropriate facility representative, as identified in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22, for the NPDES permittee, facility seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, or industrial user located in a city without an approved local pretreatment program, shall submit the following information to the regulatory authority:
(i) Facility name;
(ii) NPDES permit number (if applicable);
(iii) Facility address;
(iv) Name, address and contact information for the designated facility representative;
(v) Brief written statement regarding the basis for claiming such a temporary waiver; and
(vi) Copy of the relevant FCC information, from the most recent FCC report addressing such issues, identifying the zip code or census tract where that facility is located as being under-served for broadband internet access.
(3) If the regulatory authority determines that a temporary waiver is merited under the condition identified in paragraph (1) of this section, the regulatory authority shall provide such notification to the appropriate EPA regional office and the affected NPDES permittee, facility seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, or industrial user located in a city without an approved local pretreatment programs, in accordance with the requirements of § 127.24(a)(2).
(4) These temporary waivers are only waivers from electronic reporting; the NPDES-regulated facilities receiving temporary waivers from electronic reporting are required to provide the required applicable information (identified in Appendix A to this part) in hard-copy format to the regulatory authority.
(5) The temporary waiver may remain in effect until the situation meriting such a temporary waiver is resolved, but for no more than one year. At that time, if the situation meriting such temporary waiver is still not resolved and if the NPDES-regulated facility does not re-apply for a temporary waiver, the NPDES permittee, facility seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, or industrial user located in a city without an approved local pretreatment program, shall report the applicable required NPDES information, as identified in this part and in Appendix A to this part, electronically to the initial recipient through a third-party contractor or other available internet connections (e.g., public libraries).
(b) [Reserved]
(a) One-time extensions to due dates for electronic reporting may be granted by regulatory authorities to NPDES permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs, for situations involving catastrophic circumstances beyond the control of the facilities, such as forces of nature (e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes). This one-time extension for electronic reporting would allow written, rather than electronic, submission of information, if warranted by the incident.
(1) To apply for this one-time extension, the appropriate facility representative, as identified in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22, for the NPDES permittee, facility seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, or industrial user located in a city without an approved local pretreatment program shall submit the following information toregulatory authority:
(i) Facility name;
(ii) NPDES permit number;
(iii) Facility address;
(iv) Name, address and contact information for the designated facility representative;
(v) Brief written statement regarding the basis for claiming such a one-time extension; and
(vi) Indication when the required written information will be provided to the regulatory authority.
(2) If the regulatory authority determines that a one-time extension is merited in accordance with this section, the regulatory authority shall provide notification to the appropriate EPA regional office and to the affected NPDES permittee, facility seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, or industrial user located in a city without an approved local pretreatment program, in accordance with the requirements of § 127.24(a)(3).
(3) The one-time extension may remain in effect until the situation meriting such a one-time extension is resolved (i.e., effects of the incident meriting the one-time extension no longer exist), but for no more than one year after the situation that merited the one-time extension arose. At that time, if the situation has not been resolved, the NPDES permittee, facility seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, or industrial user located in a city without an approved local pretreatment program shall report the applicable required NPDES information, as identified in this part and in Appendix A to this part, electronically to theinitial recipient, through a third-party contractor or other available electronic connections (e.g., internet connection in public libraries).
(b) [Reserved]
(a) The effective date for this section shall be [60 DAYS AFTER THE PROMULGATION DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 127].
(b) NPDES-regulated facilities, with the exception of those covered by any temporary waiver under § 127.15 or any one-time extension under § 127.16, must electronically submit to the designated initial recipient all information covered by this part in accordance with 40 CFR parts 3 and 122, and all requirements of this part, after the following dates:
(1) Discharge monitoring report information (if required), as required in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4), shall be provided electronically to the initial recipient, as identified in § 127.27, and as defined in § 127.2(b), after [ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127].
(2) Notices of intent (if required), as described in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2), for coverage under EPA-issued general permits, notices of termination, no exposure certifications, and low erosivity waivers shall be provided electronically to the initial recipient, as identified in § 127.27, and as defined in § 127.2(b), after [ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127].
(3) Notices of intent (if required), as described in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2), for concentrated animal feeding operations for coverage under general permits shall be provided electronically to the initial recipient, as identified in § 127.27, and as defined in § 127.2(b), after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127].
(4) Biosolids annual reports (as described in 40 CFR part 503), concentrated animal feeding operation annual reports (as described in 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)), municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) program reports (as described in 40 CFR 122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c)), pretreatment-related self-monitoring reports (if required) from industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs (as required in 40 CFR 403.12(e) and 403.12(h)), pretreatment program annual reports (as described in 40 CFR 403.12(i)), and sewer overflow and bypass incident event reports (as described in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and (7)) shall be provided electronically to the initial recipient, as identified in § 127.27, and as defined in § 127.2(b), after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127].
(5) Notices of intent (if required), as described in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2), for coverage under general permits not described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section shall be provided electronically to the initial recipient, as identified in § 127.27, and as defined in § 127.2(b), after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127].
(c) If the applicable NPDES permit requires electronic reporting of the reports identified in paragraph (b) of this section sooner than the dates specified in paragraph (b) of this section, then the NPDES-regulated facility is required to provide that information electronically to the regulatory authority in accordance with the due date(s) in the permit.
(d) If the regulatory authority has granted a facility or group of facilities temporary waivers or one-time extensions from electronic reporting under §§ 127.15 or 127.16, the facility or facilities shall submit in hard-copy format, by the applicable due dates, to the regulatory authority, all of the required information applicable to that facility as identified in § 127.11 and in Appendix A to this part, in accordance with all requirements of this part, including the requirements of §§ 127.22 and 127.23. Upon the expiration date of a temporary waiver, unless the NPDES-regulated facility re-applies for and is approved for another temporary waiver, the NPDES-regulated facility shall be required to submit the applicable required information (as identified in § 127.11 and in Appendix A to this part) electronically to the initial recipient, as defined in § 127.2(b), for that information.
(a) States, tribes, and territories that have received authorization from EPA to implement the NPDES program shall report the following NPDES information (as specified in Appendix A to this part) to EPA electronically:
(1) facility and permit information for NPDES individual permits;
(2) permit information associated with NPDES general permits (including information specific to subprograms [if applicable] or to thermal variances [if applicable], and information regarding cooling water intakes for discharges of 2 million gallons per day or more [if applicable]);
(3) compliance monitoring and inspection activities;
(4) compliance determination information;
(5) enforcement action information; and
(6) information provided electronically or otherwise (e.g., from facilities granted temporary waivers from electronic reporting) by the NPDES-regulated facility to the authorized NPDES program rather than to EPA.
(b) If the authorized state, tribe, or territory NPDES program is the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities (see § 127.2(b)), the authorized NPDES program shall transfer these NPDES program data to EPA within 30 days of the completed activity or within 30 days of the receipt of a report from a regulated entity. Specific data elements that are required to be submitted electronically to EPA by the states, tribes, or territories that have received authorization from EPA to implement the NPDES program are identified in Appendix A to this part.
(a) Primary responsibility for the quality of the information provided electronically to EPA in accordance with this part by the regulatory authorities rests with those government entities. Therefore, the regulatory authorities shall utilize quality assurance and quality control procedures to ensure the quality of the NPDES information submitted to EPA in accordance with this part.
(b) [Reserved]
(a) After [THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], the Director of each state, tribe, and territory that has been authorized by EPA to implement the NPDES program shall ensure that EPA is electronically provided with the NPDES information identified in Appendix A to this part, in a nationally consistent manner which is:
(1) Timely, in that the authorized state, tribe, or territory electronically provides the required data (as specified in Appendix A to this part) to EPA within 30 days of the completed activity or within 30 days of receipt of a report from a regulated entity. For example, the data regarding a state inspection of an NPDES-regulated entity that is completed on October 15th shall be submitted automatically to EPA no later than November 14th of that same year (e.g., 30 days after October 15th).
(2) Accurate, in that 95% or more of the required data available in EPA's data system for NPDES information are identical to that reported on the permit or other source document for that information;
(3) Complete, in that 95% or more of submissions required for each NPDES data group are available in EPA's data system for NPDES information; and
(4) Consistent, in that data electronically submitted by states, tribes, and territories to EPA, by direct entry of information, data transfers from one data system to another, or some combination thereof, into EPA's designated NPDES national data system is in compliance with EPA's data standards and in a form and measurement units which are fully compatible with such data system.
(b) An authorized program shall consistently maintain the requirements identified in paragraph (a) of this section in order to be the initial recipient, as defined in § 127.2(b). If the authorized program does not maintain these requirements, EPA shall become the initial recipient.
(a) Under § 127.15, NPDES permittees, facilities seeking coverage under NPDES general permits or submitting stormwater certifications or waivers, and industrial users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs, may submit requests for temporary waivers or one-time extensions from electronic reporting. The responsibilities regarding the review and approval of these requests are:
(1) For temporary waivers due to the lack of broadband access in certain remote areas, the regulatory authority shall ensure that the temporary waiver request meets the requirements of § 127.15 and shall notify the requestor and the appropriate EPA regional office within 15 business days of the request as to whether the temporary waiver will be granted.
(2) For one-time extensions associated with catastrophic circumstances, the regulatory authority shall ensure that the waiver request meets the requirements of § 127.15, and shall notify the requestor and the appropriate EPA regional office within 15 business days of the request as to whether the temporary waiver will be granted.
(b) The regulatory authority may choose not to allow any temporary waivers or one-time extensions from electronic reporting. This would preclude the need to develop and implement standard procedures to review requests for temporary waivers or one-time extensions.
(c) EPA shall have the authority to review and disapprove decisions by the regulatory authority regarding the granting of temporary waivers from electronic reporting and one-time extensions of electronic reporting, ensuring that approvals of these requests are in compliance with §§ 127.15, 127.16, and this section.
A state, tribe, or territory that has received authorization from EPA to implement the NPDES program is required to make program revisions in accordance with 40 CFR 123.62(e). No additional time extensions shall be available from EPA for state, tribe, or territory program revisions to achieve compliance with this rule.
(a) The effective date for this section shall be [90 DAYS AFTER THE PROMULGATION DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 127].
(b) Authorized state, tribe, and territory NPDES programs shall follow the procedure in § 127.27 for determining the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities (see § 127.2(b)).
(c) States, tribes, and territories shall electronically submit all applicable required data elements associated with their permitting, compliance monitoring, compliance determinations, and enforcement activities (see Appendix A to this part) to EPA by [9 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127] and maintain updates thereafter. These state, tribe, and territory data transmissions to EPA shall be done in accordance with all requirements of this part, including the requirements of §§ 127.22 and 127.23.
(d) For the required NPDES information, as identified in § 127.11 and in Appendix A to this part, that an NPDES authorized state, tribe, or
(e) Authorized states, tribes, or territories that can implement 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and this part without amending or enacting a statute shall do so by [12 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127]. NPDES-authorized states, tribes, and territories that must amend or enact a statute in order to change their NPDES programs to implement 40 CFR part 3 (CROMERR) and this part shall do so by [24 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127]. See 40 CFR 123.62(e). This includes updates to state NPDES data systems. All new permits issued or existing permits re-issued after the authorized state, territory, or tribe incorporates federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and this part) into its authorized program shall contain a permit condition requiring compliance with the electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and this part. NPDES-regulated facilities which have the federal electronic reporting requirements (40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and this part) in their permits shall start (or continue) electronic reporting to the initial recipient (as defined in § 127.27).
(a) A state, tribe, or territory that has received authorization from EPA to implement the NPDES program before the effective date of this rule may request to be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities for specific NPDES data groups by submitting a request to EPA. For states, tribes, and territories with NPDES authorization prior to the effective date of the rule, the Director shall submit this request prior to [120 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 127]. This request shall identify the specific NPDES data groups for which the state, tribe, or territory will be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities, a description of how its data system will be compliant with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127, and the date or dates when the state, tribe, or territory will be ready to accept NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities in a manner compliant with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127.
(b) A state, tribe, or territory that seeks authorization to implement an NPDES program after [THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127] shall identify in its NPDES program application if it is requesting to be the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities for specific NPDES data groups. See 40 CFR 123.22(g) and Appendix A to this part.
(c) By [210 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR 40 CFR PART 127], EPA shall publish on its Web site and in the
(d) Failure to maintain all the requirements in 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 to be an initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities shall prohibit the state, territory, or tribe from being the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated entities. The following is the process for these determinations:
(1) EPA shall make a preliminary determination identifying if an authorized state, tribe, or territory is not complying with the requirements in 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 to be an initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities. EPA shall provide to the Director of the authorized NPDES program the rationale for any such preliminary determination and options for correcting these deficiencies. Within 60 days of EPA's preliminary determination, the authorized state, tribe, or territory shall fully correct all deficiencies identified by EPA and notify EPA that such corrections have been completed. No response from the Director of the authorized NPDES program shall indicate that the state, territory, or tribe agrees to be removed as the initial recipient for that NPDES data group of electronic NPDES information. Within 90 days of the EPA's preliminary determination, EPA shall provide to the Director of the authorized NPDES program a final determination whether the state, tribe, or territory is not complying with the requirements in 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 to be an initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities.
(2) EPA shall become the initial recipient of electronic NPDES information from NPDES-regulated facilities if the state, tribe, or territory does not consistently maintain data transfers in compliance with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127.
(3) EPA shall update the initial recipient listing described in § 127.27(c) and publish this listing on its Web site and in the
(4) Following any determination of noncompliance made in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section, EPA will work with the Director of the authorized NPDES program to remediate all issues identified by EPA that prevent the authorized NPDES program from being the initial recipient. When all issues identified by EPA are resolved and the authorized state, tribe, or territory is again the initial recipient, EPA shall update the initial recipient listing in § 127.27(c) and publish this listing on its Web site and in the
The following two tables identify the minimum set of data that states, tribes, territories, and NPDES-regulated entities must electronically report to the NPDES authorized program or EPA [see § 127.2(b)]. Use of these two tables ensures that there is consistent and complete reporting nationwide, and to expedite the collection and processing of the data, thereby making it more accurate and timely. Taken together, these data standardizations and the corresponding electronic reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts 3, 122, 123, 127, 403, and 503 are designed to save the NPDES authorized programs considerable resources, make reporting easier for NPDES-regulated entities, streamline permit renewals (as permit writers typically review previous noncompliance events during permit renewal), ensure full exchange of NPDES general permit data between states and EPA to the public, improve better environmental decision-making, and to protect human health and the environment.
Instructions: Table 1 provides the list of data sources and minimum submission frequencies for the nine different NPDES Data Groups. Table 2 provides the data that must be electronically reported for each of these NPDES Data Groups. The use of each data element is determined by identifying the number(s) in the column labeled “NPDES Data Group Number” in Table 2 and finding the corresponding “NPDES Data Group Number” in Table 1. For example, a value of “1” in Table 2 means that this data element is required in the transmission of data from
33 U.S.C. 1251
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) Regularly notify all Control Authorities of electronic submission requirements of 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127.
(e) * * *
(1) Any Industrial User subject to a categorical Pretreatment Standard (except a Non-Significant Categorical User as defined in § 403.3(v)(2)), after the compliance date of such Pretreatment Standard, or, in the case of a New Source, after commencement of the discharge into the POTW, shall submit to the Control Authority during the months of June and December, unless required more frequently in the Pretreatment Standard or by the Control Authority or the Approval Authority, a report indicating the nature and concentration of pollutants in the effluent which are limited by such categorical Pretreatment Standards. In addition, this report shall include a record of measured or estimated average and maximum daily flows for the reporting period for the Discharge reported in paragraph (b)(4) of this section except that the Control Authority may require more detailed reporting of flows. In cases where the Pretreatment Standard requires compliance with a Best Management Practice (or pollution prevention alternative), the User shall submit documentation required by the Control Authority or the Pretreatment Standard necessary to determine the compliance status of the User. At the discretion of the Control Authority and in consideration of such factors as local high or low flow rates, holidays, budget cycles, etc., the Control Authority may modify the months during which the above reports are to be submitted. For Industrial Users for which EPA or the authorized state, tribe, or territory is the Control Authority, all reports covered under this paragraph and submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127] shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative in compliance with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 and § 403.12(l) and with any additional requirements imposed by the Control Authority.
(h)
(i)
33 U.S.C. 1251
State sludge management programs shall comply with 40 CFR parts 3 and 127 (including the applicable required data elements in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 127).
Sections 405(d) and (e) of the Clean Water Act, as amended by Pub. L. 95–217, sec. 54(d), 91 Stat. 1591 (33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e)); and Pub. L. 100–4, title IV, sec. 406(a), (b), 101 Stat., 71, 72 (33 U.S.C. 1251
(a) Class I sludge management facilities, POTWs (as defined in § 501.2 of this chapter) with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one million gallons per day, and POTWs that serve 10,000 people or more shall submit a report on February 19 of each year. All annual reports submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the Director or applicable permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127 and with any additional requirements imposed by the Director.
(b) [Reserved]
Class I sludge management facilities, POTWs (as defined in § 501.2 of this chapter) with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one million gallons per day, and POTWs that serve 10,000 people or more shall submit a report on February 19 of each year. All annual reports submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the Director or applicable permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127 and any additional requirements imposed by the Director.
Class I sludge management facilities, POTWs (as defined in § 501.2 of this chapter) with a design flow rate equal to or greater than one million gallons per day, and POTWs that serve a population of 10,000 people or greater shall submit a report on February 19 of each year. All annual reports submitted after [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], or if required by the Director or applicable permit on or before [TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 40 CFR PART 127], shall be submitted electronically by the owner, operator, or their designated representative, in compliance with 40 CFR part 3, 40 CFR 122.22, and 40 CFR part 127 and any additional requirements imposed by the Director.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM).
The FHWA is proposing the National Tunnel Inspection Standards (NTIS) for highway tunnels. The FHWA previously proposed the NTIS in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2013. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Mail or hand deliver comments to: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at
Mr. Jesus Rohena, Office of Bridge Technology, HIBT–10, (202) 366–4593; Mr. Joey Hartmann, Office of Bridge Technology, HIBT–10, (202) 366–4599; or Mr. Robert Black, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC–30, (202) 366–1359, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.
This document, the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), NPRM, and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at
This regulatory action seeks to establish national standards for tunnel inspections consistent with the provisions of MAP–21, which includes requirements for establishing a highway tunnel inspection program, maintaining a tunnel inventory, and reporting to FHWA of inspection results and, in particular, critical findings, meaning any structural or safety-related deficiencies that require immediate follow-up inspection or action. The NTIS proposed in this SNPRM apply to all structures defined as highway tunnels on all public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, including tribally and federally owned tunnels.
Routine and thorough inspections of our Nation's tunnels are necessary to maintain safe tunnel operation and prevent structural, geotechnical, and functional failures. In addition, data on the condition and operation of our Nation's tunnels is necessary in order for tunnel owners to make informed investment decisions as part of an asset management program for maintenance and repair of their tunnels. Recognizing that the safety and security of our Nation's tunnels are of paramount importance, Congress declared in MAP–21 that it is in the vital interest of the United States to inventory, inspect, and improve the condition of the Nation's highway tunnels. As a result of this declaration and the authority established by MAP–21 in 23 U.S.C. 144, FHWA is proposing the NTIS.
The NTIS proposes the establishment of a national tunnel inventory; routine inspections of tunnels on all public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, including tribally and federally owned tunnels; written reports to FHWA of critical findings, as defined in 23 CFR 650.305; training for tunnel inspectors; a national certification program for tunnel inspectors; and the timely correction of any deficiencies.
Section 650.503 describes the applicability of the proposed NTIS as authorized by MAP–21.
Section 650.507 describes the organizational requirements associated with successful implementation of the proposed NTIS. Tunnel inspection organizations would be required to develop and maintain inspection policies and procedures, ensure that inspections are conducted in accordance with the proposed standards, collect and maintain inspection data, and maintain a registry of nationally certified tunnel inspection staff.
Section 650.509 proposes certain minimum qualifications for tunnel inspection personnel. A Program Manager would, at a minimum, be a registered Professional Engineer (P.E.), have 10 years of tunnel or bridge inspection experience, and be a nationally certified tunnel inspector. The Team Leader would be a registered P.E. and a nationally certified tunnel inspector. This section also describes the proposed requirements for national certification of inspection staff.
Section 650.511 proposes a minimum inspection frequency of 24 months for routine tunnel inspections. An owner would be permitted to increase or decrease the frequency of inspection of particular components based on the age, condition, or complexity of those components.
Section 650.513 proposes the establishment of a statewide, Federal agencywide, or tribal governmentwide procedure to ensure that critical findings, as defined in 23 CFR 650.305, are addressed in a timely manner. Owners would be required to notify FHWA within 24 hours of identifying a
Section 650.515 defines certain inventory data information to be collected and reported for all tunnels subject to the NTIS within 120 days of the effective date of this proposed rule. This data would be used to create a national inventory of tunnels that would result in a more accurate assessment and provide the public with a more transparent view of the number and condition of the Nation's tunnels.
The FHWA only has limited data regarding the number of highway tunnels in the Nation, the frequencies at which those tunnels are inspected, and the costs associated with their inspection. The FHWA received some data from a 2003 informal survey FHWA conducted of tunnel owners.
The FHWA expects that the overall increase in tunnel inspection costs across the Nation will be modest, as the vast majority of tunnel owners already inspect at the 24-month interval required by the NTIS. The FHWA does not have any information regarding the cost of fixing critical findings that are uncovered as a result of provisions in this rulemaking. Based on current data, only two tunnel owners, that together own 15 tunnels (bores), would be required to increase their current inspection frequency as a result of the requirements proposed in this SNPRM. The FHWA is proposing this action because ensuring timely inspections of highway tunnels would not only enhance the safe passage of the traveling public, it would also protect investments in key infrastructure, as early detection of problems in tunnels will likely increase the longevity of these assets. The FHWA does not have sufficient information to quantify the benefits of this rulemaking, and as such is not able to determine if there are net benefits. We seek comments on benefits resulting from this rulemaking, the costs associated with fixing critical findings that are identified during inspections, as well as the costs of re-routing or closing traffic in order to conduct the inspections.
The FHWA previously proposed the NTIS in an NPRM published in the
In Section 1111(a) of MAP–21, Congress declared that it is in the vital interest of the United States to inventory, inspect, and improve the condition of the highway tunnels of the United States.
Section 1111(b) broadens the authority of the NTIS previously proposed in the NPRM and extends that authority to tunnels owned or operated by tribal governments.
Section 1111(d) requires annual revisions be made to the inventory of tunnel data collected under MAP–21 authority and reporting on that inventory to Congress.
Section 1111(h) requires the Secretary to establish inspection standards to ensure uniformity of inspections and evaluations, to define a maximum time period between inspections, to detail the qualifications required for those charged with carrying out the inspections, to require that appropriate records are retained, and to create a procedure for national certification of highway tunnel inspectors. As a result, provisions are now proposed in this SNPRM for the certification of national tunnel inspectors.
Section 1111(h) also requires the establishment of procedures to conduct reviews of State compliance with NTIS, as well as for the reporting of critical findings, as defined in 23 CFR 650.305, and any monitoring or corrective actions taken in response to critical findings. As a result, provisions are now proposed in this SNPRM that describe how State compliance will be determined and when and how often reporting to the FHWA on critical findings, and any follow-up actions taken in response to those findings, are required.
Section 1111(i) requires that training programs be established for tunnel inspectors. In response, the SNPRM now includes provisions that require approved training for Program Managers, Team Leaders, and inspectors.
The majority of road tunnels in the United States were constructed during two distinct periods of highway system expansion. A significant number of these tunnels were constructed in the 1930s and 1940s as part of public works programs associated with recovery from the Great Depression. Another significant number were constructed for the developing Interstate Highway System in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result, most of these structures have exceeded their designed service lives and need to be routinely inspected in order to ensure continued safe and efficient operation.
The structural, geotechnical, and functional (electrical, mechanical, and other) components and systems that make up tunnels are subjected to deterioration and corrosion due to the harsh environment in which these structures are operated. As a result, routine and thorough inspection of these elements is necessary to collect the data needed to maintain safe tunnel operation and to prevent structural, geotechnical, and functional failures. As our Nation's tunnels continue to age, an accurate and thorough assessment of each tunnel's condition is critical to avoid a decline in service and maintain a safe, functional, and reliable highway system.
In addition to ensuring safety, it is also necessary to collect data on the condition and operation of our Nation's tunnels in order for owners to make informed investment decisions as part of a systematic integrated transportation asset management approach. Without such an approach, ensuring an accountable and sustainable practice of maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, or replacement across an inventory of tunnels is a significant challenge. Data-driven asset management provides tunnel owners with a proven framework to demonstrate long-term accountability and accomplishment. To meet the needs of this management approach, the data collected needs to be robust enough to support these investment decisions within a State and consistent enough across the Nation to identify trends in performance and demonstrate the
Timely and reliable tunnel inspection is vital to uncovering safety problems and preventing failures. When corrosion or leakage occurs, electrical or mechanical systems malfunction, or concrete cracking and spalling signs appear, they may be symptomatic of problems. The importance of tunnel inspection was demonstrated in the summer of 2007 in the I–70 Hanging Lake tunnel in Colorado when a ceiling and roof inspection uncovered a crack in the roof that was compromising the structural integrity of the tunnel. This discovery prompted the closure of the tunnel for several months for needed repairs. The repairs prevented a potential catastrophic tunnel failure and loss of life. That potential catastrophe could have resulted in the need for an even longer period of repairs, and also may have resulted in injuries and deaths.
Unfortunately, loss of life was not avoided in Oregon in 1999. In January of that year, a portion of the lining of the Sunset Tunnel located near Manning, west of Portland, collapsed, killing an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) employee. At the time of the collapse, the lining was being inspected to ensure its safety after a heavy rain in response to a report by a concerned traveler on the highway that passes through the tunnel. The extent of deterioration in the lining had not been identified and regularly documented in previous inspections of the tunnel, which occurred variably. As a result, the lining had deteriorated to the point that the safety inspection after the rain event was sufficient to trigger the collapse. Following the accident, ODOT reviewed their tunnel inspection program and identified a need to define what a tunnel is, establish the criteria to be used to inspect a tunnel, define the professional qualifications needed for a tunnel inspector, and to create tunnel inspection procedures.
Inadequate tunnel inspection was again linked to a loss of life in Massachusetts in 2006. In July of that year, a portion of the suspended ceiling collapsed onto the roadway in the I–90 Central Artery Tunnel in Boston, killing a motorist. It also resulted in closure of this portion of the tunnel for 6 months while repairs were made, causing significant traffic delays and productivity losses. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) stated in its accident investigation report that, “had the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, at regular intervals between November 2003 and July 2006, inspected the area above the suspended ceilings in the D Street portal tunnels, the anchor creep that led to this accident would likely have been detected, and action could have been taken that would have prevented this accident.”
More recently, inspection of ceiling panels in the westbound I–264 Downtown Tunnel in Portsmouth, Virginia, prevented a catastrophic failure. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) routinely performs an in-depth inspection of this tunnel at approximate intervals of 5 to 7 years. During an inspection in 2009, VDOT personnel found aggressive corrosion of embedded bolts used to support the ceiling panels over the roadway. Upon further evaluation, it was determined that the ceiling panels needed to be removed to ensure the safety of the traveling public. The tunnel was completely closed for six consecutive weekends in order to perform this maintenance activity. If there had not been a timely inspection, the corrosion would have worsened and there would likely have been a collapse that could have caused death, injuries, or property damage, and potentially complete closure of the tunnel for an extended period of time, resulting in significant productivity losses.
Most recently, on December 2, 2012, the suspended ceiling in Japan's Sasago Tunnel collapsed onto the roadway below crushing several cars, resulting in the deaths of nine motorists. Early reports in the media citing Japanese officials have indicated that the collapse is likely the result of the failure of the anchor bolts that connected the suspended ceiling to the tunnel roof. According to the Central Japan Expressway Company, which is responsible for the operation of the tunnel, those connections had not been thoroughly inspected due to issues with access.
The FHWA estimates that tunnels represent nearly 100 miles—approximately 517,000 linear feet—of Interstates, State routes, and local routes. Tunnels such as the Central Artery Tunnel in Massachusetts, the Lincoln Tunnel in New York, and the Fort McHenry and the Baltimore Harbor Tunnels in Maryland are a vital part of the national transportation infrastructure. These tunnels accommodate huge volumes of daily traffic, contributing to the Nation's mobility. For example, according to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Lincoln Tunnel carries approximately 120,000 vehicles per day, making it the busiest vehicular tunnel in the world. The Fort McHenry Tunnel handles a daily traffic volume of more than 115,000 vehicles. Any disruption of traffic in these or other highly traveled tunnels would result in a significant loss of productivity and have severe financial impacts on a large region of the country.
On October 29, 2012, flooding caused by Hurricane Sandy led to the closure of many of the vehicular, transit, and rail tunnels in the New York City metropolitan area. Although it is still too early to quantify the economic impact of these tunnel closures, it is expected that the economic impact was substantial. Amtrak alone reported an operational loss of approximately $60 million due to the closures of four of its tunnels in the region.
Of particular concern is the possibility of a fire emergency in one of
Ensuring timely inspections of highway tunnels would not only enhance the safe passage of the traveling public, it could also contribute to the efficient movement of goods and people and to millions of dollars in fuel savings. For example, the Eisenhower/Johnson Memorial Tunnels, located west of Denver on I–70, facilitate the movement of people and goods from the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains to the western slope. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) estimates that the public saves 9.1 miles by traveling through these tunnels instead of over U.S. Highway 6, Loveland Pass. In the year 2000, approximately 28,000 vehicles traveled through the tunnels per day, which is equal to 10.3 million vehicles for the year.
While the above examples do not constitute a comprehensive list of issues resulting from lack of inspections, these examples do demonstrate why routine and thorough tunnel inspection is vital to uncovering safety problems and preventing catastrophic failure of key tunnel components. Some of these tunnel operators have already taken adequate steps, such as increasing frequency of inspections, in order to address these problems. These are simply examples of why tunnel inspections are important. These examples of the costs of tunnel failures and closures are not necessarily benefits resulting from this rulemaking, because the operators have in some cases already taken steps absent this current rulemaking to improve inspection procedures.
In addition to the focus Congress has given to tunnel inspection, the NTSB, State departments of transportation (State DOTs), the IG, the FHWA, and others have conducted extensive research related to tunnel design, construction, rehabilitation, and inspection. The following partial listing of those activities and projects related to tunnel safety all underscore the need to develop consistent and reliable inspection standards.
A. Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, Operations, and Emergency Response.
B. NCHRP Project 20–07/Task 261, Best Practices for Implementing Quality Control and Quality Assurance for Tunnel Inspection.
C. Best Practices for Roadway Tunnel Design, Construction, Maintenance, Inspection, and Operations.
D. In 2003, FHWA conducted an informal survey to collect information about the tunnel inventory, maintenance practices, inspection practices, and tunnel management practices of each State. Of the 45 highway tunnel owners surveyed, 40 responses were received. The survey results suggest that there are approximately 350 highway tunnels (bores) in the Nation and that they are currently inspected by their owners at frequencies that range from daily to once every 10 years.
E.
Recognizing that the safety and security of our Nation's tunnels are of paramount importance and as a result of the legislative mandate in MAP–21, FHWA has developed the NTIS proposed in this SNPRM. The FHWA has modeled the proposed NTIS after the existing NBIS, located at 23 CFR part 650, subpart C. The more than 40-year history of NBIS has enabled the States to identify and manage deterioration and the emergence of previously unknown problems in their bridge inventory, to evaluate those structures properly, and to make the repairs needed to forestall the escalating cost of repairing or replacing older bridges. Similar needs and concerns exist for the owners of aging highway tunnels. The NBIS provides a reasonable starting point for designing a national tunnel inspection program. The FHWA has therefore modeled the proposed NTIS after the NBIS, and will make appropriate changes in the NTIS as we gather further experience with tunnel inspections and tunnel safety problems. It is proposed that the NTIS will be added under subpart E of 23 CFR part 650—Bridges, Structures, and Hydraulics.
The proposed NTIS requires the proper safety inspection and evaluation of all tunnels. The NTIS are needed to ensure that all structural, mechanical, electrical, hydraulic and ventilation systems, and other major elements of our Nation's tunnels are inspected and tested on a regular basis. The NTIS would also enhance the safety of our Nation's highway tunnels, and will make tunnel inspections consistent across the Nation.
The proposed NTIS would create a national inventory of tunnels that would result in a more accurate assessment and provide the public with a more transparent view of the number and condition of the Nation's tunnels. Tunnel information would be made available to the public in the same way that bridge data contained in the National Bridge Inventory is made available. The tunnel inventory data would also be available in the annual report to Congress that is required by MAP–21. The tunnel inventory data would allow FHWA to track and identify any patterns of tunnel deficiencies and facilitate repairs by States to ensure the safety of the public. Tunnel owners would also be able to integrate tunnel inventory data into an asset management program for maintenance and repairs of their tunnels. The data collection requirements in the proposed NTIS are consistent with the performance-based approach in carrying out the Federal highway program established by Congress in MAP–21. These proposed requirements would fulfill the congressional directive to establish a data-driven, risk-based approach for the maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of highway tunnels. Such an approach would help to ensure the efficient and effective use of Federal resources.
The proposed NTIS will ensure that tunnels are inspected by qualified personnel by creating a certification program for tunnel inspectors and a comprehensive training course.
The FHWA issued an ANPRM on November 18, 2008, (73 FR 68365) to solicit public comments regarding 14 categories of information related to tunnel inspections to help FHWA develop the NTIS. The FHWA reviewed and analyzed the comments received in response to the ANPRM and published an NPRM on July 22, 2010 (75 FR 42643). In the NPRM, FHWA proposed establishing the NTIS based in part on the comments received in response to the ANPRM. The FHWA received comments on the docket for the NPRM from 16 commenters, including: 1 Federal agency (NTSB); 7 State DOTs (California, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington); 1 engineering consulting firm (PB Americas); 4 organizations (American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), AASHTO, American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)); 1 local government agency (The Seattle Fire Department); 1 private corporation (Damascus Corp.) and 1 anonymous commenter. This SNPRM addresses the comments received on the NPRM and updates the proposed regulation for the provisions detailed in MAP–21.
The purpose for the NTIS was amended to be consistent with the requirements of MAP–21. The purpose of the NTIS is to ensure the proper safety inspection and evaluation of all tunnels.
The CDOT commented that it concurs with limiting the applicability to only Federal-aid built or renovated tunnels as was proposed in the NPRM. The CDOT also commented that the scope of the NTIS should be limited to those tunnels that were built or rehabilitated with title 23 funds and this limitation should continue until title 23 funds can be used to inspect off-system tunnels similar to the exception that exists for off-system bridges.
The applicability for the NTIS would be amended to be consistent with the requirements of MAP–21. The applicability of NTIS would be broadened to all tunnels regardless of their funding source.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) indicated there might be insufficient data to determine which tunnels have been built or renovated with title 23 funds.
The AASHTO commented that these regulations will require State DOTs to provide oversight of inspection of Federal tunnels.
The NTSB commented that FHWA should continue seeking the legislative authority to require that all publicly used highway tunnels are subject to the NTIS. The NTSB commented that their experience with accident investigations leads them to believe that only a mandatory NTIS that applies to all highway tunnels on public roads will adequately protect the public.
The Seattle Fire Department stated there is no definition of the term “inspection” in the rule and that this will lead to confusion by the tunnel owner/operator as to the intent and method of the inspection program.
With regard to “lid type tunnels,” per the proposed definition of tunnel in this rule, owners would be required to classify a structure as either a tunnel or a bridge and that classification would determine the appropriate procedures by which to rate the structure. For example, if a tunnel roof serves as a roadway for traffic above the tunnel, that roof should be load rated as part of the tunnel and not as an independent bridge.
The ASCE recommended using the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures Technical Committee T–20, Tunnels definition of
Caltrans suggested that the NTIS classify as tunnels all structures requiring forced ventilation to limit carbon monoxide buildup, all structures with fire suppression systems, and all structures bored or mined through undisturbed material. Caltrans suggested that language addressing ventilation systems, fire protection systems, and type of construction be included in the definition for
PB Americas proposed the following definition for
The Seattle Fire Department suggested additional language for the definition of
The AASHTO emphasized the need for clarity in the definition of
This section of the proposed rule was amended to be consistent with the requirements of MAP–21. The proposed rule requirement that States and Federal agencies inspect or cause to be inspected all tunnels that are fully or partially within their responsibility or jurisdiction was extended to tribally owned tunnels. Also, tunnel inspection organizations would be required to maintain a registry of nationally certified tunnel inspectors that work in their jurisdiction.
The AASHTO, MassDOT, and VDOT expressed concern that this proposed rule places the responsibility for inspecting tunnels within a State's boundaries on the State DOT. This would be the case even though a number of major tunnels on Federal-aid highways are owned and operated by semi-autonomous authorities that were established by State legislators with statutory independence from State DOTs. The commenters worried that, as a result, these regulations will place State DOTs in the awkward position of being responsible for an oversight task that they have no legal authority to perform. The VDOT further commented that tunnels owned by legal authorities should be exempted from this rule.
The AASHTO and Indiana DOT requested clarification regarding whether § 650.507 and § 650.515 require a State to maintain a tunnel inspection organization, including policies and procedures, a designated Program Manager, and inventory and reporting system, as required by § 650.507 and § 650.515, if the State does not own or possess any qualifying tunnels. Indiana DOT also asked if annual reporting to FHWA would be required to confirm that no qualifying tunnels exist.
Caltrans noted that while it has an established system for the collection of bridge inspection data and report writing, the development of a similar system for tunnel inspection is a labor intensive effort that would take several years to complete.
The ACEC commented that risk management requirements should be addressed in the final rule. More specifically, ACEC commented that liability for inspecting engineers and those preparing reports should be addressed. The ACEC suggested that the NTIS state that reports be prepared in accordance with the care and skill ordinarily used by inspectors practicing under similar conditions at the same time and in the same locality. In addition, ACEC indicated that the NTIS should make clear that inspection
An anonymous commenter noted that the NTIS must address worker safety. The commenter recommended that gas detection equipment be required for each team entering a tunnel to prevent carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide exposure. The commenter further commented that head protection meeting current national consensus standards be required in instances where the structural integrity of the tunnel's roof is in question. In addition, the commenter suggested that high visibility clothing be required and that each member of the team's leadership should have requisite Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) training regarding workplace hazards present during tunnel inspections.
This section was amended to be consistent with the requirements of MAP–21. Under this proposed rule, Program Managers and Team Leaders are required to be nationally certified tunnel inspectors. Also, the proposed requirements for a national certified tunnel inspector were added.
The ASCE and VDOT recommended that the Program Manager be required to be a registered P.E. and meet minimum education and experience requirements.
The VDOT and PennDOT recommended that the Program Manager be required to successfully complete an FHWA-approved comprehensive tunnel inspection training course.
The AASHTO recommended that the Program Manager be a registered P.E. or have 10 years of tunnel or bridge inspection experience and successfully complete an FHWA-approved comprehensive tunnel inspection training course.
The MassDOT and AASHTO recommended that the qualifications for both Program Manager and Team Leader be the same as those required under the NBIS. The MassDOT and AASHTO further recommended that if a P.E. is required, it should be required for both the Program Manager and the Team Leader, and that the Team Leader should be a P.E. registered in the discipline of the system that his or her team will be inspecting.
The ACEC recommended that both the Program Manager and the Team Leader be required to have a P.E.
The VDOT recommended that the Team Leader be a registered P.E. in the technical discipline of inspections, while WSDOT recommended that the Team Leader be licensed in the field of Geotechnical Engineering. Further, PennDOT recommended that the Team Leader be permitted to have 5 years of tunnel or bridge inspection experience as an alternative to be a registered P.E.
The FHWA agrees that the Team Leader should be a registered P.E. due to the complex nature of these inspections. The Team Leader is responsible for assembling a team of inspectors with appropriate expertise and experience to inspect the various elements, components, and systems that comprise the tunnel. Accordingly, FHWA does not believe that the Team Leader needs to be licensed in each specific discipline related to the elements being inspected. The Team Leader could have a license in any related discipline. The FHWA proposes to modify the definition for Professional Engineer in § 650.505 of the rule to emphasize that they are required to practice within their area of expertise.
The title of this section has been changed to more directly reflect the content. This section has also been modified to reflect a change from the HRTTIM to the TOMIE Manual as the manual incorporated by reference and to establish a routine inspection date that will benchmark the commencement of future inspections.
The NFPA and the Seattle Fire Department recommended incorporating NFPA requirements for inspection frequencies of specific safety features into the regulation.
The ASCE expressed a desire for a more flexible approach to scheduling inspections based on age and complexity, but recognized that the 24-month requirement matches the NBIS making them complementary.
The FHWA has also modified § 650.511 to allow the inspection to take place within a defined interval 2 months before or after an established inspection date. This would offer additional flexibility in scheduling inspections to accommodate scheduling adjustments for factors including weather, personnel, or equipment issues. An inspection date would be established and could only be modified by a Program Manager. Documentation supporting the modified date would need to be retained in the tunnel records for future reference.
PB Americas commented that a 2-year inspection frequency is adequate for most systems for a visual routine inspection. They recommended every third cycle be an in-depth hands-on sounding inspection including non-destructive and destructive testing. Additionally, they commented that following the Central Artery Tunnel collapse, they divided inspections into two categories: critical and non-critical. Critical areas were defined as areas that could cause loss of life or injury if they failed. They suggested that critical areas should be inspected annually, with non-critical areas being inspected every 2 years.
The ACEC supported a risk-based inspection process with a minimum frequency of 2 years. For the more frequent inspections identified in § 650.511(b)(2) and the damage, in-depth, and special inspections in § 650.511(c), they stated the regulation should clarify the need to specifically assess critical areas, such as structural elements or functional systems where failure would pose a life or safety issue.
The VDOT and AASHTO recommended revising the introductory language of § 650.511 to read: “Each State transportation department or Federal agency tunnel inspection organization must conduct or cause the following to be conducted for each tunnel described in § 650.503” in order to clarify whether State and local tunnels are included.
The VDOT recommended revising § 650.511(a) to require an initial inspection within 60 months of the effective date of the rule and to permit an inspection that occurred within the 60 months prior to the effective date of the rule to be accepted as the initial inspection.
The AASHTO commented that the current 12 months for initial inspection in the NPRM will be difficult to comply with if remaining tunnels within State borders have not received initial inspections in accordance with the NTIS. They note that if a tunnel was inspected prior to the effective date, the previous inspection should be sufficient. The AASHTO recommended changing the 12 month initial inspection requirement to 24 months, and permitting an inspection within 24 months of the effective date to serve as the initial inspection. The PennDOT similarly commented that the inspection of a tunnel conducted per the HRTTIM within 24 months of the effective date of the rules should be accepted as the initial inspection.
The MassDOT and AASHTO both inquired about the timeframe for performing an initial inspection for a new tunnel.
The VDOT expressed concern that States would have difficulty funding the proposed tunnel inspection frequency and recommended revising § 650.511(b)(1) to read: “Provide an up-close or in-depth inspection of the civil/structural elements of the tunnels at regular intervals not to exceed 5 years. Provide an up-close or in-depth inspection of the operational systems at regular intervals of 24 months. It may be beneficial to consider a risk-based approach to provide enhanced safety to the program in an effective manner.”
The VDOT also recommended FHWA consider an incremental implementation of the program to give States an opportunity to plan for the program changes. Additionally, VDOT recommended revising § 650.511(b)(2) until more comprehensive guidelines are developed as follows: “Inspect each tunnel at regular intervals not to exceed 60 months to ensure tunnel structural elements and functional systems are performing as designed, and document the inspection using procedures developed by the owner.”
This section has been updated to reflect changes in the incorporated reference for the proposed rule, acceptable timeframes for the load rating and posting of a tunnel, the reporting of critical findings, as defined in 23 CFR 650.305, and how State compliance will be assessed.
A private individual and an anonymous commenter noted that the NTIS should specify the specialized equipment to be used while performing tunnel inspections in order to promote worker safety. The anonymous commenter also recommended the NTIS address worker safety.
Various commenters, including NFPA, PB Americas, and the Seattle Fire Department requested that various publications other than the HRTTIM be referenced in the NTIS. These include referencing the NFPA codes, the AASHTO T–20 Manual, the FHWA TOMIE Manual, and the FHWA 2009 Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels.
The AASHTO and VDOT further recommended that the language of § 650.513(a) be revised to read: “Inspect tunnel structural elements and functional systems in accordance with the inspection guidance provided in the Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual (incorporated by reference, see § 650.517) for in-depth inspections and in accordance with the procedures developed by the owner for routine, drainage and special inspections.”
The NFPA, the Seattle Fire Department, and AASHTO suggested that the NTIS recommend or list specific systems/elements that should be inspected. These commenters expressed a concern that inspection requirements relative to fire and life safety systems were not properly addressed in the NTIS. The commenters suggested that testing requirements of functional systems be included in the NTIS. The AASHTO further commented that functional system testing requirements should only apply to mechanical/electrical systems.
The FHWA does not believe that the NTIS needs to be overly prescriptive in defining specific inspection requirements for various tunnel elements or components. The NTIS is meant to provide national requirements relative to tunnel inspection and reporting, and allows tunnel owners and inspection program managers the flexibility to develop inspection procedures that fit the needs and complexity of unique tunnels, including system and component testing. Tunnel owners would be encouraged to develop inspection and maintenance manuals for various functional systems as part of the original design, and incorporate those maintenance manuals into the overall tunnel inspection procedures.
The AASHTO commented that the requirement that tunnel-specific inspection procedures be developed for each tunnel inspected and inventoried should not apply to simple rural tunnels.
The ACEC recommended including a statement in the NTIS that inspection reports should be prepared with care and skill. The ACEC also commented that the NTIS should make clear that inspection reports are for the exclusive use of the tunnel owner.
The FHWA understands that dissemination of the information might be a concern of tunnel owners; however, the rule requires that inspection and inventory information be submitted to FHWA to fulfill the proposed requirements of this regulation. Tunnel owner dissemination of reports beyond the required submission to FHWA is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The AASHTO expressed concern relative to FHWA Division oversight of the NTIS requirements.
The AASHTO requested that tunnels with at-grade internal roadways and with no overhead roadways should be exempted from the load rating requirement. The AASHTO and VDOT further suggested that § 650.513(g) be revised to read, “Rate each tunnel, which carries live load above and within the influence area of the tunnel roof or lining or carries traffic within the tunnel on a structural system, as to its safe vehicular/non-vehicular load-carrying capacity in accordance with the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation. Post or restrict the highways in or over the tunnel in accordance with this same manual unless otherwise specified in State law, when the maximum unrestricted legal loads or State permit load exceed that allowed under the operating rating or equivalent rating factor.”
The AASHTO requested that Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) requirements be developed in consultation with AASHTO. The VDOT proposed revising subsection (i) to read “Conduct systematic quality assurance of tunnel inspections and ratings in accordance with the owner's quality assurance program. Include periodic field review of inspections and independent review of inspection reports and computations in the owner developed program.”
The AASHTO and VDOT recommended that FHWA develop inventory reporting format guidelines for the NTIS similar to the NBIS Structural Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) sheets. The AASHTO and VDOT further recommended that § 650.513(h) be revised so that written reports are maintained for in-depth, routine, and special tunnel inspections.
Section 650.513(h) of these regulations would require that written reports on the results of tunnel inspections, together with notations of any action taken to address the findings of such inspections, be maintained. It was intended that this language apply broadly to the types of inspections performed: initial, routine, in-depth, and special inspections.
The AASHTO and VDOT suggested annual reporting of critical findings and corrective actions taken to resolve or monitor the same. They further suggest that a critical finding be considered a system with a general condition rating of “3” or less.
The FHWA believes that the definition of a critical finding would be limited by adding the language proposed by the commenters. While it is generally accepted that a system, element, or component with a condition rating of “3” or less would be in poor condition, condition rating systems can change. Additionally, a system, element, or component with a condition rating of “3” or less might not warrant being classified as a “critical finding.” For example, a sidewalk may have deterioration that would warrant a condition rating of “3” or less, but could adequately be addressed or repaired by the tunnel owner without requiring reporting to FHWA. The intent of this portion of the proposed regulations is to provide a reporting mechanism to FHWA of the most extreme and critical structural, component, or system deteriorations or failures that could be a threat to the traveling public's safety and well-being. Further, this portion of the proposed rule seeks to ensure that severe conditions are addressed in a timely and appropriate manner through oversight and partnership with FHWA. The FHWA believes that the current wording of this proposed rule adequately fulfills this intent.
The AASHTO and VDOT suggested that FHWA revise § 650.513(f) to require initial, routine, and in-depth tunnel inspections be done with qualified staff not associated with operation or maintenance of the tunnel structure, but that this requirement should not apply to drainage inspections.
The AASHTO commented that § 650.513(h) be revised so that the requirements to prepare inspection documentation using the HRTTIM should apply only to in-depth inspections.
This section has been amended to direct owners and responsible parties to FHWA-approved recording and coding guidance for the purpose of assembling tunnel inventory information.
The NFPA recommended that tunnel inspection records be kept for 10 years or four inspection cycles, whichever is longer. The NFPA further suggested that the rule should establish variable record
The NFPA recommended a unique and meaningful tunnel ID system for each and every tunnel.
The ASCE expressed support for the requirement that each Federal agency or State complete an inventory of tunnels in their jurisdictions within 30 days of the adoption of a final rule. The VDOT recommended that FHWA change the target for submission of the preliminary inventory from 30 days to within 90 days of the effective date of the rule. Caltrans indicated that it is unrealistic to expect that all tunnels will be inventoried and the results reported to FHWA within 30 days of the effective date of the rule.
The VDOT recommended that State DOTs should have the option of using data from their existing inspection procedures to rate the structural and functional conditions in their tunnels, converting the data from their existing condition rating system to the NTIS format, and submitting the data to FHWA within 120 days of the effective date of this rule instead of using the HRTTIM chart.
The ASCE recommended including information on portals, geometric ground conditions, lane clearances, and other geodata, and a complete description of the mechanical systems in the inventory.
Caltrans also suggested FHWA develop a tunnel inventory system to be compatible with existing National Bridge Inspection (NBI) coding framework. The MassDOT strongly recommended that FHWA develop a standard reporting format with standard coding conventions and codes for reporting tunnel inventory data, in the same manner as the SI&A sheet functions for bridges, before requiring the submission of the preliminary inventory. The MassDOT noted that a tunnel may be divided into segments due to its length and many segments may not have a portal feature. The MassDOT recommended that FHWA take into account such a segmentation of tunnels for inventory, inspection, and maintenance purposes.
The Seattle Fire Department recommended collecting comprehensive data for fire and life safety systems at the time of installation or in the planned inspections in the first 12 months, and collecting a separate set of information regarding “design assumptions” or the basis of design. The Seattle Fire Department proposed adding a new paragraph under § 650.515(a) to address “Fire and Life Safety Systems and Basis of Design.” Information collected under this proposal would include component level inventory of fire and life safety systems, such as fire detection, notification, fire suppression, ventilation, exiting, and systems that are electronically controlled or monitored by the fire and life safety system. In addition, the Seattle Fire Department proposed collecting information about the assumptions made during initial design and subsequent modifications to fire and life safety systems, including the fire size, fire growth rate, smoke propagation, and evacuation time.
The AASHTO recommended that FHWA establish a data format in consultation with AASHTO. The AASHTO suggested this format should be similar to the national bridge SI&A geometric data so that the two inventories can be seamlessly integrated. The AASHTO also suggested that the tunnel owner rate the structural and functional system in its tunnels from 0 to 9 in accordance with the HRTTIM, or convert the data from their existing condition rating system to the NTIS format and submit the data to FHWA within 3 years of the effective date of this rule.
The VDOT and AASHTO recommended that the HRTTIM be updated and revised to be more reflective of the tunnel types, functional systems, and environments that are typically found in highway tunnels, if it is to serve the same function under these regulations as the Bridge Inspection Reference Manual does under the NBIS. The VDOT also recommended that FHWA revise the rule to remove any reference to specific editions.
Numerous commenters noted that the HRTTIM needs to be updated to better address inspection of electrical and mechanical components and should be revised to include an element level rating system. PB Americas commented that the current HRTTIM is inadequate and so should not be included. Instead, PB Americas suggested using the 2009 FHWA Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels—Civil Elements, (FHWA Tunnel Manual) and the AASHTO Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels—Civil Elements, First Edition (AASHTO Tunnel Manual). The NFPA recommended that the rule reference
The FHWA issued a Notice and Request for Comments on June 14, 2010, (75 FR 33659) to solicit public comments regarding FHWA's request for the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of new information collection. The FHWA reviewed and analyzed the comments received in response to the Request for Comments. The FHWA received comments on the docket from 4 commenters, including: 3 State DOTs (New York DOT (NYSDOT), Ohio DOT (ODOT), and VDOT) and 1 organization (AASHTO).
I.
The VDOT, ODOT, and AASHTO commented that the 8 hour burden estimate is low.
The ODOT and AASHTO commented that despite the fact that States are already inspecting their tunnels, the burden on States may still be high because States use different formats that may not be easily adapted to the national standard. The ODOT and AASHTO noted that the estimate of effort must also include: an initial effort of at least 1 year to set up systems to collect and store required data, time for training, and increased time for collecting data. They noted that only simple tunnels are likely to require only 8 hours.
The VDOT, ODOT, and AASHTO commented that the Request for Comment doesn't give details of the data items that will be required. They noted that without more detail, it is impossible to evaluate the time required for collection, management, and reporting.
The VDOT and AASHTO commented that they cannot adequately assess the level of effort because the Request for Comments did not provide details regarding data storage, data formatting, or data submittal.
Since many States are already inspecting their tunnels, they are likely to have much of the data needed to satisfy the preliminary inventory data collection burden. Likewise, since many States are already collecting and storing inspection data they are likely to already have much of the data needed to satisfy the inspection burden. As a result, FHWA expects that the additional burden on the States to report this data, possibly in an altered format, will be very minimal. However, to allow States more time to set up systems to collect and store data in the required format and to decrease the burden associated with the collection of initial inspection data, FHWA is increasing the timeframe for initial inspection from 12 to 24 months in the proposed rule and eliminating the requirement to provide preliminary condition data.
The Request for Comment (75 FR 33659) listed the preliminary inventory data that FHWA proposes to collect to establish the National Tunnel Inventory (NTI). The proposed tunnel inspection data is detailed in the Specifications for National Tunnel Inventory. Both the proposed preliminary inventory data form and the Specifications for the National Tunnel Inventory are available for review at:
It is the intent of FHWA to provide guidance on data formatting and data submittal prior to the implementation of the proposed rule. States will have the individual discretion to decide on the data storage solutions that best fit their program.
Finally, FHWA specifically requests that tunnel owners provide estimates of time to collect and report the inventory and inspection data in their comments so that a more detailed analysis can be made of the burden on States.
The AASHTO commented that data on interior tunnel structural features is not commonly stored in a readily available format and will be especially difficult to collect for older tunnels.
II.
The VDOT, ODOT, and AASHTO commented that the NTIS should specify data flat file format and provide an “edit/update” computer application similar to the NBIS.
The VDOT, ODOT, and AASHTO noted that the FHWA should prepare the tools to store and submit data before implementing data collection.
States will have the individual discretion to decide on the data storage solutions that best fit their program.
The VDOT recommends that FHWA develop a template using forms or spreadsheets that can be easily populated for responses in order to minimize the burden on States. The VDOT recommends that the template be created in an easy format for State-by-State review and comparison.
The FHWA is developing a data file format to be used for NTI data
III.
The ODOT and the AASHTO commented that “OneDOT” is not designed to record inventory style data. They suggest including the data in a comment field or, preferably, constructing a table within “OneDOT.”
IV.
The VDOT and NYSDOT proposed that the inventory include information on tunnel systems, such as tunnel ventilation and fire suppression.
The VDOT proposed that the inventory include information about emergency response, including fire response times, the responsible agency for providing fire response, and whether the tunnel facility is regulated or unregulated for hazardous materials.
The VDOT suggested that the inventory include a list of points of contact for State tunnel facilities in order to facilitate interaction among the States.
V.
The VDOT and AASHTO commented that the “Portal Milepost” is not a common locator for all agencies. The AASHTO suggested that FHWA allow States to substitute a Bridge Management System Number or other common locating system for the Portal Milepost.
The VDOT, ODOT, and AASHTO suggested the use of a national numbering system.
The FHWA does believe that each tunnel will need a unique ID. However, in lieu of a national numbering system, FHWA will provide guidance on how to generate these unique IDs similarly to how owners generate the unique IDs assigned to bridges under the NBIS.
VI.
The NYSDOT recommended that the rule provide a clear definition of “tunnel” and “bore.” The NYSDOT noted that cut-and-cover tunnels should be included in the inventory, but that use of the term “bore” could eliminate them.
The NYSDOT commented that many structures that could be inventoried as tunnels are already classified as bridges in the NBIS. The NYSDOT recommended that the NTIS should not supersede these NBIS bridges.
The NYSDOT commented that the rule needs to define the maximum distance between bores of the same tunnel. The NYSDOT recommended that bores with distance greater than the maximum be inventoried as separate tunnels.
The proposed rule states that a structure shall be inspected and inventoried under either the NBIS or the NTIS, but not both. The proposed rule allows owners to determine if a structure in their inventory is a tunnel or a bridge based on the guidance included in the NBIS and the NTIS.
The term “bore,” which is generally associated with a type of tunnel construction, is also used to identify the individual roadway enclosures of a tunnel. The FHWA does not believe it is necessary to establish a maximum distance between bores of a tunnel for inventory purposes. Inventorying individual bores of a tunnel as separate tunnels is being left to the discretion of the owner.
VII.
The ODOT and AASHTO recommended that the rule provide clear guidelines on inspection responsibility, particularly for State DOTs and for tunnels owned by Federal agencies. The AASHTO questioned whether the inventory is limited to only highway tunnels, or whether it includes railroad and pedestrian walkway tunnels as well.
The NYSDOT commented that it doesn't own any tunnels in the State and will have to rely on tunnel owners for information to report to FHWA.
The proposed rule does not apply to tunnels exclusively used by railroads or pedestrians.
VIII.
The NYSDOT and AASHTO commented that the standards need to define “preliminary condition data” in order to correctly determine the level of effort needed to collect and submit the data.
IX.
The AASHTO recommended that FHWA not be too prescriptive on the information it wants and that it allow some flexibility.
The AASHTO commented that the NCHRP Report titled “Best Practices for Implementing Quality Control and Quality Assurance for Tunnel Inspection” would be helpful in the development of the national inspection program for tunnels.
The FHWA has determined that this proposed rule constitutes a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and is significant within the meaning of the DOT regulatory policies and procedures. This action complies with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to improve regulation. This action is considered significant because of widespread public interest in the safety of highway tunnels, although not economically significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866.
Having received relatively few comments at the ANPRM stage regarding costs and mindful of the potential cost implications of the proposed rule, in the NPRM, FHWA renewed its specific request for information regarding estimated or actual costs associated with tunnel inspections, particularly the typical inspection costs per linear foot of tunnel. In addition, the FHWA requested comments regarding the anticipated increased costs the proposed NTIS would impose on tunnel owners. Only WSDOT commented on the cost of tunnel inspections in response to the NPRM. The WSDOT stated that the budget for the recently completed mechanical and electrical in-depth inspection of the MLK Lid and Mount Baker Ridge Tunnel was $409,500 for the consultants alone. The WSDOT was in the process of negotiating a scope of work and cost estimate for a similar inspection in the spring for the Mercer Island Tunnel and the Convention Center, which was expected to be of similar magnitude. While FHWA appreciates WSDOT providing such information, it is unclear from the information received what the scope of the work and inspection for this particular tunnel would be. Without further information on the length of the tunnel, the complexity of the design, and the number and type of functional systems, it is difficult to determine if the numbers provided by WSDOT fall within the anticipated cost range FHWA has outlined below. As a result of this lack of information and the broadened scope of the proposed rule, FHWA renews its request for estimated or actual costs associated with tunnel inspections, particularly the typical inspection costs per linear foot of tunnel. In addition, FHWA specifically requests information on the following: (1) The average number of critical findings that are identified during inspections, (2) the average cost of fixing critical findings that are identified during inspections, (3) cost savings associated with the repair of critical findings, (4) costs (administrative, economic, and any other) associated with closing tunnels, roads, etc. in order to conduct inspections according to the provisions in this rulemaking, and (5) any other data the public believes would be helpful in determining the costs and benefits associated with addressing critical findings.
The FHWA's 2003 tunnel inventory survey indicates that there are approximately 45 organizations that own, operate, and/or maintain approximately 350 vehicular (highway) tunnels (bores) in the United States. These tunnels represent nearly 100 miles—running the distance of approximately 517,000 linear feet—of Interstates, State routes, and local routes. Tunnel inspection costs can vary greatly from tunnel to tunnel. Comments to the ANPRM and NPRM suggested that current inspection costs range from $5 to $75 per linear foot per inspection depending on the complexity of the tunnel. If we assume that each highway tunnel includes four lanes, FHWA estimates that the total current inspection cost for all tunnel owners could range between $10,340,000 (4 lanes x 517,000 x $5) and $155,100,000 (4 lanes x 517,000 x $75). This results in a current estimated average cost range between $29,542 ($10,340,000/350) and $443,142 ($155,100,000/350) per tunnel bore, per inspection. These figures reflect current costs to inspect and do not include the additional costs anticipated to be associated with this rulemaking.
Based on data from the 2003 survey, and subsequent communications the agency had with two tunnel owners, only 2 tunnel owners (the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York and the VDOT), that together own 15 tunnel bores, would be required to increase their current inspection frequency as a result of the interval for inspection required by this action.
Owner A currently inspects at a 10-year interval and owns four tunnel bores. We estimate the current annual inspection costs for Owner A to be between $2,954.2 ($29,542/10) and $44,314.2 ($443,142/10) per tunnel bore. Under the proposed rule, we estimate the annual inspection costs for Owner A to be between $14,771 ($29,542/2) and $221,571 ($443,142/2) per tunnel bore. As a result, Owner A would see an estimated annual cost increase of between $11,817 ($14,771 −$2,954.2) and $177,257 ($221,571 −$44,314.2) per tunnel bore. For all four tunnel bores owned by Owner A, we estimate the current annual inspection costs to be
Owner B currently inspects at a 7-year interval and owns 11 tunnel bores. We estimate the current annual inspection costs for Owner B to be between $4,220.3 ($29,542/7) and $63,306 ($443,142/7) per tunnel bore. Under the proposed rule, we estimate the annual inspection costs for Owner B to be between $14,771 ($29,542/2) and $221,571 ($443,142/2) per tunnel bore. As a result, Owner B would see an estimated annual cost increase of between $10,551 ($14,771 −$4,220) and $158,265 ($221,571 −$63,306) per tunnel bore. For all 11 tunnel bores owned by Owner B, we estimate the current annual inspection costs to be between $46,423 (11 x $4,220.3) and $696,366 (11 x $63,306). Under the proposed rule, we estimate the annual inspection costs for all 11 tunnel bores to be between $162,481 (11 x $14,771) and $2,437,281 (11 x $221,571). As a result, Owner B would see an estimated total cost increase of between $116,058 ($162,481 −$46,420) and $1,740,915 ($2,437,281 −$696,366).
Based on the above analysis, FHWA estimates the current aggregate annual cost of tunnel inspections for the two affected tunnel owners to be between $58,240 ($11,817 + $46,423) and $873,623 ($177,257 + $696,366). Under the inspection interval that would be required by the proposed rule, we estimate the aggregate annual cost to be between $221,565 (59,084 + $162,481) and $3,323,565 ($886,284 + $2,437,281). As a result, FHWA estimates the aggregate annual cost increase for the inspections for the two affected tunnel owners to range between $163,325 (low) ($221,565 −$58,240) and $2,449,942 (high) ($3,323,565 −$873,623). The FHWA notes that each tunnel owner must collect and submit inventory data information for all tunnels subject to this proposed rule within 120 days of the effective date and when requested by FHWA in the future. The total estimated cost to collect, manage, and report preliminary inventory data is $56,160 (2,808 hours @ $20/hour = $56,160). As a result, FHWA estimates the total aggregate annual cost increase for the inspections for the two affected tunnel owners to range between $219,485 (low) ($163,325 + $56,160) and $2,506,102 (high) ($2,449,942 + $56,160).
The FHWA expects that the overall increase in costs of inspecting tunnels would be modest, as the vast majority of tunnel owners already inspect at the 24-month interval proposed by the NTIS. However, FHWA does not have sufficient information regarding the cost increase from the rest of the provisions of the rulemaking such as fixing critical defects and closing tunnels and roads in order to conduct the inspections. The FHWA recognizes that the 2003 tunnel inventory survey does not represent the full universe of tunnel owners and tunnels, but believes that it is comprehensive enough to draw preliminary conclusions on the cost effects of this proposed rule. The FHWA also assumes that any increase in the cost per inspection resulting from the rule's requirements would not cause the cost per inspection to exceed the upper end of the range of inspection costs assumed in the analysis. The FHWA requests tunnel owners to submit comments on the accuracy and reasonableness of FHWA's tunnel inventory and inspection cost assumptions (above).
In addition to the costs associated with more frequent inspections, FHWA expects that tunnel owners may experience a modest increase in costs as a result of the training requirements contained in the proposed rule. Based on the training of bridge inspectors under the NBIS, we estimate that the cost to train a tunnel inspector will be approximately $3,000 over a 10-year period (1 basic class and 2 refresher classes).
The above estimated tunnel inspection costs were compiled based on the limited cost data submitted by tunnel owners in response to the NPRM. The FHWA requests that States, Federal agencies, and others submit their most current inspection costs per each tunnel in their inventory which will help the agency prepare a more comprehensive cost estimate of tunnel inspections. In addition, FHWA requests that tunnel owners submit information on the costs associated with training tunnel inspectors and the costs associated with the repair of critical defects identified during inspections (including user costs resulting from lane closures during the repair period). The FHWA also requests information on how frequently currently conducted inspections identify significant safety defects in tunnels that require repairs and what costs appear to have been prevented as a result of identifying the defect during an inspection rather than as a result of a failure.
Timely tunnel inspection could uncover safety problems. The agency is taking this action to respond to the statutory directive in MAP–21 and because it believes that ensuring timely and reliable inspections of highway tunnels will result in substantial benefits by enhancing the safety of the traveling public and protecting investments in key infrastructure. In addition, we believe that any repairs or changes that take place because of problems identified in the inspections could lead to substantial economic savings.
Additionally, the proposed NTIS could protect investments in key infrastructure, as early detection of problems in tunnels could increase the longevity of these assets and avoid more costly rehabilitation and repair actions over time. It is generally accepted in the transportation structures community that inspection and maintenance are effective forms of avoiding substantial future costs. For example, a 2005 University of Minnesota study on the benefits of asphalt runway maintenance concluded that, at a minimum, the costs of maintaining a runway were half those of not maintaining a runway when measured over the life of the asset.
The above description of tunnel inspection benefits were summarized from the limited benefit data submitted by tunnel owners in response to the NPRM and compiled by FHWA. The FHWA requests that States, Federal agencies, and others submit any additional benefit data that will help the agency prepare a more comprehensive analysis of the benefits associated with tunnel inspections. The FHWA specifically requests data on the cost savings associated with the repair of
As established above, FHWA does not have sufficient information to estimate total costs and total benefits of this rulemaking. The Agency has preliminary estimates regarding just the inspection portion of the rulemaking and believes them to be between $219,485 (low) and $2,506,102 (high). The FHWA seeks information regarding the full costs and benefits of this rulemaking.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 601–612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this SNPRM on small entities and anticipates that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the regulations are primarily intended for States and Federal agencies, FHWA has determined that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. States and Federal agencies are not included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply, and FHWA certifies that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FHWA has determined that this SNPRM will not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). The NTIS is needed to ensure safety for the users of the Nation's tunnels and to help protect Federal infrastructure investment. As discussed above, FHWA finds that this regulatory action will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $143,100,000 or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Additionally, the definition of “Federal mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility.
The FHWA has analyzed this SNPRM in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FHWA has determined that this action will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action will not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, for further information.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The FHWA proposes to collect data to establish an NTI. Initially a subset of the Inventory Items defined in the Specifications of the National Tunnel Inventory will be collected. This information will be reported to FHWA on the Preliminary Tunnel Inventory Data Form which is included in the NTIS docket and available on the FHWA Web site at:
The following is the data that will be collected under the NTI on the Preliminary Tunnel Inventory Data Form:
(1) Identification Items: tunnel number, tunnel name, State code, county code, place code, highway agency district, route number, route direction, route type, facility carried, LRS route ID, LRS mile point, tunnel portal's latitude, tunnel portal's longitude, border tunnel State or county code, border tunnel financial responsibility, border tunnel number and border tunnel inspection responsibility.
(2) Age and Service Items: year built, year rehabilitated, total number of lanes, average daily traffic, average daily truck traffic, year of average daily traffic, detour length and service in tunnel.
(3) Classification Items: owner, operator, direction of traffic, toll, NHS designation, STRAHNET designation and functional classification.
(4) Geometric Data Items: tunnel length, minimum clearance over tunnel roadway, roadway curb-to-curb width, and left curb and right curb widths.
(5) Structure Type and Material Items: number of bores, tunnel shape, portal shape, ground conditions and complexity.
The anticipated respondents include the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any Federal agencies and tribal governments that own tunnels. The estimated burden on the States to collect, manage, and report this data is assumed to be 8 hours per tunnel for a total estimate of 2,808 hours for all 350 estimated tunnels in the Nation. This represents an average of 54 hours per responder. With the average time of 54 hours per responder to collect, manage and report preliminary inventory data, it is estimated that the burden hours will total 2,808 hours per year (52 responses x 54.00 hours per responder = 2,808 hours).
In addition to the preliminary inventory information described above, tunnel owners are required to report to the Secretary on the results of tunnel inspections and notations of any action taken pursuant to the findings of the inspections. For all inspections, tunnel owners would be required to enter the appropriate inspection data into the State DOT, Federal agency, or tribal government inventory within 3 months from the completion of the inspection. The number of responses per year is based on the total number of tunnels in the United States of 350, with approximately one half being inspected each year based on the standard 24 month inspection frequency. The annual responses are estimated at 175
The FHWA estimates that the collection of information contained in this proposed rule would result in approximately 11,888 total annual burden hours (2,808 hours for preliminary inventory collection + 9,080 for annual inspections = approximately 11,888 total annual burden hours). Since the majority of States are already inspecting their tunnels, they are likely to have much of the data needed to satisfy the preliminary inventory data collection burden. Likewise, since many States are already collecting and storing inspection data they are likely to already have much of the data needed to satisfy the routine inspection burden. As a result, FHWA expects that the additional burden on the States to report this data will be very minimal.
A notice seeking public comments on the collection of information included in this proposed rule was published in the
The Department again invites interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of the information collection, including the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the DOT's performance, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the DOT's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included, or both, in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
The Department has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
This action will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This action meets applicable standards in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
The FHWA has conducted a preliminary analysis of this proposed action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000. The FHWA believes that this proposed ruled will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. To FHWA's knowledge, there are no tunnels that are owned, operated, or maintained by Indian tribal governments. However, FHWA requests comments from Indian tribal governments and others regarding any potential impacts that this SNPRM may have on Indian Tribes. The FHWA specifically requests information on the number of tunnels owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. This information will allow the agency to conduct a more thorough analysis of the possible effect of this SNPRM on Indian Tribes.
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that the rule will not constitute a significant energy action under that order because, although it is considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has determined that this rule does not raise any environmental justice issues.
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Bridges, Grant programs— transportation, Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 650, by adding subpart E, as set forth below:
23 U.S.C. 119, 144, and 315.
This subpart sets the national standards for the proper safety inspection and evaluation of all highway tunnels in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 144.
The National Tunnel Inspection Standards (NTIS) in this subpart apply to all structures defined as highway tunnels on all public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, including tribally and federally owned tunnels.
The following terms used in this subpart are defined as follows:
(a) Each State DOT must inspect, or cause to be inspected, all highway tunnels located on public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, that are fully or partially located within the State's boundaries, except for tunnels that are owned by Federal agencies or tribal governments.
(b) Each Federal agency must inspect, or cause to be inspected, all highway tunnels located on public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, that are fully or partially located within the respective agency's responsibility or jurisdiction.
(c) Each tribal government must inspect, or cause to be inspected, all highway tunnels located on public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, that are fully or partially located within the respective tribal government's responsibility or jurisdiction.
(d) Where a tunnel is jointly owned, all bordering States, Federal agencies, and tribal governments with ownership interests should determine through a joint formal written agreement the inspection responsibilities of each State, Federal agency, and tribal government.
(e) Each State that contains one or more tunnels subject to these regulations, or Federal agency or tribal government with a tunnel under its jurisdiction, must include a tunnel inspection organization that is responsible for the following:
(1) Statewide, Federal agency-wide, or tribal government-wide tunnel inspection policies and procedures (both general and tunnel-specific), quality control and quality assurance procedures, and preparation and maintenance of a tunnel inventory.
(2) Tunnel inspections, written reports, load ratings, and other requirements of these standards.
(3) Maintaining a registry of nationally certified tunnel inspectors that work in their State or for their Federal agency or tribal government that includes, at a minimum, a method to positively identify each inspector, documentation that the inspector's training requirements are up-to-date, the inspector's current contact information and detailed information about any adverse action that may affect the good standing of the inspector.
(f) Functions identified in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) of this section may be delegated through a formal written agreement, but such delegation does not relieve the State DOT, Federal agency, or tribal government of any of its responsibilities under this subpart.
(g) The State DOT, Federal agency, or tribal government tunnel inspection organization must have a Program Manager with the qualifications listed in § 650.509(a), who has been delegated responsibility for paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section.
(a) A Program Manager must, at a minimum, be a registered P.E. and have 10 years tunnel or bridge inspection experience and be a nationally certified tunnel inspector. In evaluating 10 years of experience, the following criteria should be considered:
(1) The relevance of the individual's actual experience, including the extent to which the individual's experience has enabled the individual to develop the skills needed to properly lead a tunnel safety inspection.
(2) The individual's exposure to the problems or deficiencies common in the types of tunnels being inspected by the individual.
(3) The individual's understanding of the specific data collection needs and requirements.
(b) A Team Leader must, at a minimum, be a registered P.E. and be a nationally certified tunnel inspector.
(c) The individual responsible for load rating a tunnel must be a registered P.E.
(d) An inspector must, at a minimum, be a nationally certified tunnel inspector.
(e) A nationally certified tunnel inspector must:
(1) Complete a FHWA-approved comprehensive tunnel inspection training course,
(2) Complete a FHWA-approved tunnel inspection refresher training course once every 48 months subsequent to satisfying the requirement of paragraph (e)(1) of this section,
(3) Provide documentation of their training status and current contact information to the Tunnel Inspection Organization of each State DOT, Federal agency, or tribal government for which they will be performing tunnel inspections.
Each State DOT, Federal agency, or tribal government tunnel inspection organization must conduct or cause the following to be conducted for each tunnel described in § 650.503:
(a)
(2) For tunnels completed after these regulations take effect, the initial routine inspection shall be conducted after all construction is completed and prior to opening to traffic according to the inspection guidance provided in the Tunnel Operations, Maintenance, Inspection and Evaluation (TOMIE) Manual (incorporated by reference,
(b)
(2) Inspect each tunnel at regular 24-month intervals.
(3) For tunnels needing inspection more frequently than at 24-month intervals, establish criteria to determine the level and frequency to which these tunnels are inspected based on a risk analysis approach that considers such factors as tunnel age, traffic characteristics, geotechnical conditions, and known deficiencies.
(4) Certain tunnels may be inspected at regular intervals up to 48 months. This may be appropriate when past inspection findings and analysis justifies the increased inspection interval. At a minimum, the following criteria shall be used to determine the level and frequency of inspection based on an assessed lower risk: Tunnel age, time from last major rehabilitation, tunnel complexity, traffic characteristics, geotechnical conditions, functional systems, and known deficiencies. A written request that
(5) Inspect each tunnel in accordance with the established interval. The acceptable tolerance for inspection interval is within 2 months before or after the inspection date established in § 650.511(b)(1) in order to maintain that date. The actual month and year of the inspection are to be reported in the tunnel inventory.
(c)
Each State DOT, Federal agency, or tribal government tunnel inspection organization, to carry out its inspection responsibilities, must perform or cause to be performed the following:
(a) Inspect tunnel structural elements and functional systems in accordance with the inspection guidance provided in the Tunnel Operations, Maintenance, Inspection and Evaluation (TOMIE) Manual (incorporated by reference,
(b) Provide at least one Team Leader, who meets the minimum qualifications stated in § 650.509, at the tunnel at all times during each initial, routine, and in-depth inspection. The State DOT, Federal agency or tribal government national certified tunnel inspector identification for each Team Leader that is wholly or partly responsible for a tunnel inspection must be reported to the tunnel inventory.
(c) Prepare and document tunnel-specific inspection procedures for each tunnel inspected and inventoried, taking into account the design assumptions, commensurate with tunnel complexity, identifying tunnel structural elements and functional systems to be inspected, methods of inspection, frequency of inspection for each method, and inspection equipment, access equipment and traffic coordination needed.
(d) Establish requirements for functional system testing, direct observation of critical system checks, and testing documentation.
(e) For complex tunnels, identify specialized inspection procedures, and additional inspector training and experience required to inspect complex tunnels. Inspect complex tunnels according to the specialized inspection procedures.
(f) Conduct tunnel inspections with qualified staff not associated with the operation or maintenance of the tunnel structure or functional systems.
(g) Rate each tunnel as to its safe vehicular load-carrying capacity in accordance with the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (2011 edition). A load rating evaluation shall be conducted as soon as practical but not later than 1 month after the completion of the inspection. Post or restrict the highways in or over the tunnel in accordance with this same manual, or in accordance with State law when the maximum unrestricted legal loads or State routine permit loads exceed that allowed under the operating rating or equivalent rating factor. Postings shall be made as soon as possible but not later than 48 hours after a valid load rating determines their need. At-grade roadways in tunnels are exempt from load rating. Load rating calculations or input files with a summary of results are to be maintained as a part of the tunnel record.
(h) Prepare tunnel inspection documentation as described in the Tunnel Operations, Maintenance, Inspection and Evaluation (TOMIE) Manual (incorporated by reference,
(i) Ensure that systematic quality control and quality assurance procedures are used to maintain a high degree of accuracy and consistency in the inspection program. Include periodic field review of inspection teams, data quality checks, and independent review of inspection reports and computations.
(j) Establish a Statewide, Federal agency-wide, or tribal government-wide procedure to ensure that critical findings are addressed in a timely manner. Notify FHWA within 24 hours of any critical finding and the activities taken, underway, or planned to resolve or monitor the critical finding. Update FHWA regularly or as requested on the status of each critical finding until it is resolved. Annually provide a written report to FHWA with a summary of the current status of the resolutions for each critical finding identified within that year or unresolved from a previous year.
(k) Provide information annually or as required in cooperation with any FHWA review of State DOT, Federal agency, or tribal government compliance with the NTIS. FHWA will annually assess State DOT compliance using statistically based assessments and well-defined measures based on the requirements of this subpart.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the FHWA must publish notice of change in the
(b) A hard copy of the following incorporated material is available for inspection at the Office of Asset Management, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
(1) “Tunnel Operations, Maintenance, Inspection and Evaluation (TOMIE) Manual,” 2013 edition, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA–IF–13–XXX, available in electronic format at
(2) [Reserved]
(c) [Reserved]
The FHWA recommends the States consult the following materials when establishing their tunnel inspection programs.
(a) The FHWA Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels—Civil Elements, December 2009, Publication No. FHWA–NHI–10–034. This manual is available from FHWA at the following URL:
(b) The AASHTO Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels—Civil Elements, First Edition. The manual is available for purchase from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Suite 249, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 624–5800. The manual may also be ordered via the AASHTO bookstore located at the following URL:
(c) The NFPA 502:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is taking final action to approve in part and disapprove in part a portion of Arizona's State Implementation Plan (SIP) to implement the regional haze program for the first planning period through 2018. This final rule completes our evaluation of Arizona's Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) control analyses and determinations, Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for the State's 12 Class I areas, Long-term Strategy (LTS), and other elements of the State's regional haze plan as well as the Interstate Transport requirements for visibility. Today's action includes our responses to comments that we received on our proposed rules published in the
EPA has established docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0904 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available electronically at
Gregory Nudd, U.S. EPA, Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Gregory Nudd can be reached at telephone number (415) 947–4107 and via electronic mail at
(1) The words or initials
(2) The initials
(3) The words
(4) The initials
(5) The initials
(6) The term
(7) The initials
(8) The initials
(9) The words
(10) The initials
(11) The initials
(12) The initials
(13) The initials
(14) The initials lb/MMBtu mean or refer to pounds per one million British thermal units.
(15) The initials
(16) The initials
(17) The initials
(18) The initials
(19) The initials
(20) The initials
(21) The initials
(22) The initials
(23) The initials
(24) The initials
(25) The initials
(26) The initials
(27) The initials
(28) The initials
(29) The initials
(30) The initials
(31) The initials
(32) The initials
(33) The initials
(34) The initials
(35) The initials
(36) The initials
(37) The initials
(38) The initials
(39) The initials
(40) The initials
(41) The initials
(42) The initials
EPA proposed on December 21, 2012, to approve in part and disapprove in part the remaining portion of Arizona's Regional Haze (RH) SIP submitted to EPA Region 9 on February 28, 2011 (“2011 RH SIP”), to meet the requirements of Section 308 of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR).
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that all SIPs contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with other states' required measures to protect visibility. In response to the promulgation of the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone in 1997,
EPA received a notice of intent to sue in January 2011 stating that we had not met the statutory deadline for promulgating Regional Haze FIPs and/or approving Regional Haze SIPs for dozens of states, including Arizona. This notice was followed by a lawsuit filed by several advocacy groups (Plaintiffs) in August 2011.
Because four of Arizona's twelve mandatory Class I Federal areas are on the Colorado Plateau, the State had the option of submitting a Regional Haze SIP under section 309 of the RHR. A SIP that is approved by EPA as meeting all of the requirements of section 309 is “deemed to comply with the requirements for reasonable progress with respect to the 16 Class I areas [on the Colorado Plateau] for the period from approval of the plan through 2018.”
In response to an adverse court decision,
EPA made a finding on January 15, 2009, that 37 states, including Arizona, had failed to make all or part of the required SIP submissions to address regional haze.
ADEQ adopted and transmitted its 2011 Regional Haze SIP under section 308 of the RHR to EPA Region 9 in a letter dated February 28, 2011. The SIP was determined complete by operation of law on August 28, 2011.
As indicated in Table 1, the first phase of EPA's action on the 2011 RH SIP addressed three BART sources. The final rule for this phase (a partial approval and partial disapproval of the State's plan and a partial FIP) was signed by the Administrator on November 15, 2012, and published in the
Our action is based on an evaluation of the Arizona RH SIP submitted on February 28, 2011, and supplemented on May 3, 2013, to meet the requirements of Section 308 of the RHR (collectively “Arizona RH SIP”). We evaluated the Arizona RH SIP for compliance with the requirements of the RHR and CAA sections 169A and 169B. We also applied the general SIP requirements in CAA section 110 and 40 CFR Part 51. Our authority for action on the Arizona RH SIP is based on CAA section 110(k). Our authority to promulgate a FIP is based on CAA section 110(c).
This is an overview of today's final action on the rules that were proposed on December 21, 2012, and on May 20, 2013. In this section, we list the final approvals and disapprovals for each of the three major portions of the RHR: BART Analyses and Determinations, RPGs, and LTS. This is followed by our final action on the Interstate Transport requirement. EPA must address all of the final disapprovals in an upcoming proposed FIP, which will be available for review and comment. In addition, we are approving all the supporting elements of the Arizona RH SIP as proposed. For a general description of our evaluation of Arizona's BART and RP analyses, please refer to the section entitled “Summary of Final Action.”
EPA takes very seriously the decision to disapprove in part the Arizona RH SIP. However, for the reasons set forth in our proposals and elsewhere in this document, we have determined this partial approval and partial disapproval is consistent with the requirements of the CAA and the RHR, while full approval of the SIP would be inconsistent with these requirements. EPA will continue to work with ADEQ to address all of the elements of the Arizona RH SIP that we have disapproved.
We are approving the following the supporting elements of the Arizona RH SIP: Arizona's identification of Class I areas that may experience visibility impairment due to emissions from sources within the State; Arizona's estimated visibility conditions for baseline, 2018 and 2064; Arizona's uniform rate of progress for each Class I area; Arizona's emission inventories for 2002, 2008 and 2018; and Arizona's identification of the sources of visibility impairment.
The initial deadline for public comments on our December 21, 2012, proposal was February 4, 2013. After receiving several requests for an extension of the comment period, we extended the due date for public comments to March 6, 2013.
• ADEQ;
• Apache County Board of Supervisors (Apache County);
• Arizona Mining Association (AMA);
• Arizona Public Service Co (APS);
• American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO);
• CalPortland Company (CalPortland);
• Earthjustice (on behalf of National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility (Arizona Chapter) and San Juan Citizens Alliance);
• Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. (FMMI);
• Lhoist North America of Arizona (LNA);
• National Park Service (NPS);
• Phoenix Cement Company (PCC);
• Salt River Project (SRP);
• Mayor, Town of Clarkdale (Clarkdale);
• Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP); and
• Supervisor, Yavapai County District 3 (Yavapai County).
We also received one late comment from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). All of the comments we received along with attached technical reports and analyses are available for review in the docket for this action. The following sections contain summaries of the comments and our responses to the comments.
One commenter (ASARCO) asserted that EPA is relegated by the Act to a secondary role in the process of determining and enforcing the specific, source-by-source emission limitations, and that in developing SIPs the state has virtually absolute power in allocating emission limitations so long as the national standards are met.
Another commenter (CalPortland) stated that EPA cannot substitute its judgment for Arizona's determination of reasonable progress. According to the commenter, the State reasonably determined that additional controls
Nothing in the CAA indicates that EPA's role is less important in the context of the regional haze program than under other CAA programs. On the contrary, CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) explicitly requires that SIPs “meet the applicable requirements” of Part C of Title I of the CAA including the requirements for visibility protection set forth in sections 169A and 169B.
The cases cited by the commenters do not support an argument that EPA's role as a reviewer is any less critical in the regional haze context than it is in reviewing other SIP components. In
Commenters also cite
The other CAA cases cited by commenters,
As part of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress added to section 110(a)(2) requirements that SIPs (1) meet the newly enacted visibility protection requirements of Part C of Title I of the Act and (2) prohibit stationary source emissions that interfere with other states' required visibility protection measures.
The Ninth Circuit's decision in
According to the commenter, EPA has asserted that it must act now given its finding that Arizona failed to submit a complete 309 SIP, but EPA has made no such finding with respect to the State's Section 308 SIP. On this basis, the commenter concluded that unless EPA has the authority (which it has not claimed or identified) to adopt a FIP under a different regulatory provision than the SIP submitted by the State, under CAA section 110(c)(1)(B) EPA's deadline to adopt a Section 308 FIP will be July 15, 2015. CalPortland concluded that the best approach would be to seek further revisions to the third-party consent decree so that the State and affected stakeholders have a full and fair opportunity to participate in the SIP process, and EPA has the necessary time to fully and fairly consider the Arizona RH SIP.
At the time of our finding of failure to submit in 2009, EPA anticipated that ADEQ would submit a SIP revision covering 309(d)(4) and 309(g), which would enable EPA to fully approve ADEQ's 309 SIP as meeting all of the requirements of the RHR, thus ending the FIP clock. As it turned out, ADEQ did not submit a 309 SIP revision, but instead decided to develop a 308 SIP, which it submitted to EPA in February 2011. Arizona's decision to change from a 309 SIP to a 308 SIP did not nullify EPA's prior finding of failure to submit, nor did it reset the resulting two-year FIP clock under CAA section 110(c). As noted above, December 17, 2007, was the final deadline for states to submit a complete RH SIP under 308 or 309. Accordingly, our January 2009 Finding covered both 308 SIPs and 309 SIPs. The fact that the 2009 Finding reflected Arizona's decision to submit 309 SIP in lieu of a 308 SIP does not relieve the State of its obligation to fulfill all of the requirements of the RHR (whether under section 308 or section 309) and does not relieve EPA of our FIP duty in the event that the State did not meet these requirements.
As explained above, EPA is subject to a consent decree (CD) that sets deadlines for us to promulgate a RH FIP and/or approve a RH SIP action for all of the states for which we missed the statutory deadline under CAA section 110(c). In Arizona's case, we repeatedly sought extensions to the CD in order to have sufficient time to adequately address all of the requirements of the RHR, though approval of the Arizona RH SIP wherever possible and promulgation of a FIP where necessary. Had we not agreed to the deadlines currently reflected in the CD, we would have had to demonstrate to the court that it would have been impossible to comply with the Plaintiff's proposed schedule.
We also note that, as a practical matter, ADEQ was informed of EPA's concerns with the 2011 RH SIP well in advance of our December 21, 2012, notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA provided comments on December 2, 2010, to ADEQ regarding the State's proposed version of the 2011 RH SIP, noting that the SIP “does not provide a sufficient level of information and analysis to support its conclusions” and setting out specific concerns with ADEQ's BART and RP analyses.
With respect to the commenter's concern regarding the burden placed on regulated entities, we note that today's action does not establish any new requirements for any sources. If any new requirements were to apply to CalPortland or any other entity, they would be proposed as part of a FIP in a future notice-and-comment rulemaking. Finally, we note that ADEQ has submitted a Supplement that addresses a number of our proposed disapprovals, and we are approving much of that Supplement in today's action. Therefore, we do not agree that the State has had insufficient time to correct its SIP or that the timing of our action raises any due process concerns.
In the case of any submittal on which the Administrator is required to act under section 110(k)(2), the Administrator shall approve such submittal as a whole if it meets all of the applicable requirements of this chapter. If a portion of the plan revision meets all the applicable requirements of this chapter, the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part and disapprove the plan revision in part. The plan revision shall not be treated as meeting the requirements of this chapter until the Administrator approves the entire plan revision as complying with the applicable requirements of this chapter.
We also do not agree that the bifurcation of our action on the Arizona RH SIP has placed an undue burden on the State. As explained elsewhere in this document, Arizona's 2011 RH SIP was submitted more than three years after the regulatory deadline and more than two years after EPA had found that Arizona had failed to submit a complete RH SIP. As a result, EPA is legally obligated under CAA section 110(c) to promulgate a FIP to address all requirements of the RHR that cannot be addressed through SIP approvals. Initially, we were subject to a court-ordered deadline of November 15, 2012, for addressing all aspects of the RHR via SIP approval or FIP promulgation.
Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, the completeness criteria that the 2011 RH SIP has been deemed to meet by operation of law, are administrative and technical in nature and do not include a comprehensive list of the
CalPortland also indicated that the extent to which the State underestimated natural visibility conditions also affects the results of the State's RP analysis. The commenter stated that EPA's review of the State's extremely low estimates for natural visibility conditions is cursory and insufficient, particularly when compared to its review of the State's RP analysis. The commenter asserted that EPA cannot disapprove the State's RP analysis without also conducting a thorough review of the State's natural visibility conditions estimate.
With regard to the 2018 emissions inventory, RH SIPs must include “[a] statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area” including “estimates of future projected emissions.”
The commenter correctly noted that both the 2018 emissions inventory and the natural visibility conditions estimate impact the determination as to whether the State has met the URP by the end of the first planning period. However, the commenter appears to misunderstand the role of the URP under the RHR. The RHR requires that a state consider four factors when setting RPGs: costs of compliance, time necessary for compliance, energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and the remaining useful life of potentially affected sources.
Finally, EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that EPA's review of the State's natural conditions estimate was cursory and insufficient. The RHR provides that “[n]atural visibility conditions must be calculated by estimating the degree of visibility impairment existing under natural conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days, based on available monitoring information and appropriate data analysis techniques.”
In contrast, TEP and ADEQ argued that Sundt Unit 4 is not BART-eligible because it was reconstructed in 1987 and the BART Guidelines specify that “any emissions unit for which a reconstruction `commenced' after August 7, 1977, is not BART-eligible.”
TEP also noted that, while Appendix Y is not binding on Arizona with respect to Sundt Unit 4, EPA encouraged states to follow the BART Guidelines. TEP asserted that it is arbitrary and capricious for EPA to claim it can ignore the BART Guidelines in reviewing a particular SIP, given that the BART Guidelines are the means by which EPA intends to ensure that consistency is maintained across the states.
This language in the Guidelines, read in isolation, seems to indicate that
. . . given that the Guidelines are not mandatory for TEP Sundt, and that no binding statutory or regulatory provision provides for such a post-1977 reconstruction exemption, it is appropriate to read this exemption narrowly. An interpretation of “BART-eligible” as including reconstructed sources that did not go through NSR/PSD permitting is also consistent with Congressional intent and with EPA's intent in promulgating the relevant regulations. . . .
The BART Guidelines must also be read in the context of Congressional intent with regard to the visibility requirements of the CAA and EPA's visibility regulations. When EPA promulgated our initial visibility regulations in 1980, we explained our view that “a source either is new (i.e., subject to PSD) or existing (subject to BART) and
Thus, Congress did not intend and EPA does not read the RHR or BART as allowing a source to use reconstruction as a way to circumvent both BART and PSD review and thereby not address the source's effect on visibility in any fashion. Accordingly, while we acknowledge that the BART Guidelines provide an exemption from BART-eligibility for sources reconstructed after August 7, 1977, we find that this reconstruction exemption does not apply to Sundt Unit 4. Therefore, we are finalizing our disapproval of ADEQ's
FMMI also stated that, based on an independent review of its records, the Remelt CVessel should not be considered BART-eligible because it commenced operations before 1962. Although the estimated SO
LNA also commented that EPA appears to question the reasonableness of the threshold because the modeled impacts of the Nelson Lime Plant were very close to the threshold. The commenter asserted that this is not a legitimate reason to question the reasonableness of this threshold or any threshold. The commenter stated that, just as is true for dispersion modeling to determine compliance with NAAQS and for stack testing to determine compliance with emission limits, a modeled impact is either above or below the threshold with no further assessment as to the degree to which the value is above or below the threshold.
In our proposal of December 21, 2012, we noted that the source with a modeled impact closest to the 0.5 dv threshold is the Nelson Lime Plant. As explained elsewhere in today's notice, we have determined that Nelson Lime Plant is subject to BART. Setting the threshold as low as 0.3 dv would only subject two additional sources to BART and those sources have their maximum impact at different Class I areas.
As explained in the preceding response, EPA has found that conditions in Arizona do not justify a threshold lower than 0.5 dv. Therefore, we are approving the State's decision to set a threshold of 0.5 dv when determining if a source is subject to BART. EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that cumulative impacts must be considered when determining if a source is subject to BART. A source might have very small impacts across many Class I areas, but not “contribute,” within the meaning of the CAA and RHR, to visibility impairment at any one of them. Therefore, EPA does not agree that a cumulative analysis is required for purposes of determining whether sources are subject to BART.
By contrast, once a source has been found subject to BART, a complete five-factor analysis is required. One of the five factors that must be considered is “the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result” from implementation of controls. If modeling indicates that controls will significantly benefit multiple Class I areas, those benefits should be considered as part of this visibility improvement factor.
In response to the commenter's request that we independently evaluate and rerun ADEQ's modeling, we note that, for purposes of determining whether individual sources were subject-to-BART, ADEQ relied upon modeling either performed by the by the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) or performed in accordance with the modeling protocol developed by the RMC (“CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States”). EPA's review of this protocol may be found in the WRAP TSD.
NPS also conducted modeling, using the same emissions inputs as were used by the facility in its own modeling, but included condensable PM
In contrast, ADEQ and LNA argued that EPA does not have the authority to decide which approach to determining BART applicability is the most reasonable. ADEQ contended that EPA can point to no provision of the CAA or the applicable rules that is violated by the State's determination (1) to use three-year averages or (2) not to round up the 0.498 dv impact for the facility. LNA similarly stated that the BART Guidelines are not binding and that EPA has stated that average and merged values are both unbiased estimates of the true 98th percentile impacts. Based on these arguments, LNA asserted that the State's decision to use the 3-year average of the 98th percentile impacts is both reasonable and appropriate.
LNA and ADEQ also argued that the use of the 3-year average for comparison to the 0.5 dv threshold is justified because it is in line with other regulatory programs involving compliance thresholds, such as determining compliance with many NAAQS on the basis of three-year averages. ADEQ added that the FLM guidance on which EPA relies uses one-year modeling results as a screening level for further scrutiny of the applicant's proposal, not a threshold for action.
Finally, LNA cited recent additional modeling performed by LNA using the same CALMET meteorological inputs used by EPA Region 9 in other haze FIP modeling and the revised Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) equation, and reported that the resulting three-year average 98th percentile impact at the Grand Canyon was only 0.424 dv, which is well below the 0.5 dv threshold. This would make the rounding issue moot.
EPA acknowledges the supportive comments from Earthjustice. However, as explained above, states are not required to consider cumulative baseline visibility impacts when determining if a source is subject to BART. We agree with the State that the maximum impact on the most affected Class I area is the appropriate parameter to use for screening out sources that do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment.
EPA also acknowledges the additional modeling work completed by the NPS. We agree that it is appropriate to include condensable PM when modeling visibility impacts from BART-eligible facilities. The results provided by the NPS support EPA's conclusion that it is appropriate to conduct a full BART analysis for this facility. We also agree with the NPS that the method used by the State (averaging the 98th percentile impacts of the three years instead of selecting the highest impact), is not how the threshold is typically applied and is less stringent than the FLM's preferred approach.
EPA disagrees with ADEQ's assertion that the modeling for the Nelson Lime Plant shows that the source is not causing or contributing to visibility impairment. ADEQ set the threshold at 0.5 dv, a decision with which EPA agrees for reasons explained in section IV.A.4.a above. It's unlikely that the modeling could provide a result that is precise to 1/1000th of a deciview. To say that an estimate of 0.498 dv is definitively less than 0.5 dv overburdens the modeling results. In addition, averaging the 98th percentile impacts across the three years is not the standard approach and is less conservative than the FLM-recommended approach of selecting the highest impact from among the annual 98th percentile results.
It should be noted that EPA is not making a finding that a specific control technology or any controls at all are required to satisfy BART in this case. We are finding that further analysis is needed, based on the fact that the average of the 98th percentile impacts is conceivably within the margin of error of the results, and that the highest of the three 98th percentile impacts is above the threshold. We are also finding that the commenters' arguments in favor of a three-year average are not persuasive, especially given the screening nature of the subject-to-BART test. EPA's position is that the highest 98th percentile impact is more appropriate for this test. EPA disagrees with ADEQ's characterization of a subject-to-BART determination being a threshold for action. It is screen to determine if further analysis is needed. Any regulatory requirements on the source would be the result of this full BART analysis. The subject-to-BART determination does not automatically result in additional requirements for the source.
Regarding LNA's additional modeling, it is not clear what emissions inputs or natural background conditions were used. EPA cannot evaluate results without complete information on the inputs. Also, individual year results were not provided, so it only addresses the rounding issue, since the single highest year 98th percentile criterion cannot be evaluated. Given the omission of condensables in the LNA modeling, and the lack of documentation of the model inputs and outputs, EPA does not consider LNA's results to be persuasive in showing that the source clearly does not contribute to visibility impairment.
Earthjustice stated that EPA's partial FIP must include a BART determination for Nelson Lime Plant. The commenter indicated that lime plants across the nation have successfully employed various pollution controls to reduce emissions, including Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) for NO
NPS requested that, upon finding the Nelson Lime Plant is subject to BART, EPA should make a complete BART analysis available for public review and comment.
We also note, however, that despite its determination that the Hayden Smelter is not subject to BART for PM
Earthjustice pointed out that the State incorrectly exempted this smelter from BART based on PM
ASARCO added that the CALPUFF model inputs used for the Hayden Smelter in the WRAP's visibility analysis were the facility's PTE values rather than high utilization emissions rates as required under the BART Guidelines. ASARCO therefore recalculated the CALPUFF model inputs using what the commenter characterized as the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines and provided the results of its revised modeling. Based on these results, ASARCO concluded that PM emissions from the Hayden Smelter are a
Once a source is determined to be subject to BART, the RHR allows for the exemption of a specific pollutant from a BART analysis only if the PTE for that pollutant is below a specified
Another commenter (Earthjustice) asserted to the contrary that EPA should disapprove ADEQ's BART determination and independently determine whether the Hayden Smelter is subject to BART for NO
Since this estimate is based on continuous operation of the BART eligible source at 2.27 g/s, we consider this to be an overly conservative estimate of NO
ADEQ reiterated in its RH SIP Supplement submitted on May 3, 2013, that the Miami Smelter was exempt from a NO
In our notice of May 20, 2013, we proposed to approve ADEQ's decision not to include such an analysis in the SIP.
The CAA and the RHR require BART to be determined based upon an analysis of five factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
Moreover, even if a streamlined analysis were appropriate in this instance, ADEQ should have considered whether any new technologies had become available subsequent to the NSPS.
The difference between primary sulfuric acid plants and metallurgical sulfuric acid plants is the source of the SO
ASARCO asserted that EPA's suggestion that its acid plant may be able to achieve higher levels of control than the NSPS was made without any technical support. It argued that EPA had not pointed to any change in technology or practice that would make irrelevant the technical considerations that drove the NSPS subpart P conclusions.
In contrast, Earthjustice found fault with EPA's statement that it is not overly concerned with the modeling results, which the commenter characterized as downplaying the projected visibility degradation at these two monitors that represent four Class I areas. The commenter stated that the evidence cited by EPA regarding improvement in visibility on the worst days provides no support for the conclusion that visibility would correspondingly improve on the best days. The commenter also asserted that while visibility at these four Class I areas may be better than ADEQ's modeling predicts because the State did not take into account EPA's BART FIP for three coal-fired power plants in Arizona, EPA cannot dismiss modeling that shows visibility degradation simply based on speculation that the model may not be accurate. The commenter expressed support for EPA's proposed disapproval of ADEQ's RPGs for the 20 percent best visibility days because, contrary to the requirements of the RHR, visibility at four Class I areas represented by these two monitors is projected to be degraded under the Arizona RH SIP.
With regard to Earthjustice's concern, we note that we are not dismissing the modeling results. Rather, we are considering these results in the context of additional information and analysis that has been developed since the modeling was performed. In particular the emissions inventory upon which the modeling was based was completed before the nationwide recession that began in late 2008. The inventory was updated in 2009 with more up-to-date data on projected emissions from electric generating units, but many source categories that are sensitive to economic growth projections were not updated.
In conducting its RP analysis, ADEQ elected to focus on point and area sources of SO
Accordingly, we find that the Arizona RH SIP does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and (ii) with respect to point and area sources of NO
CalPortland also indicated that the results of Arizona's thorough analysis demonstrate that significant progress is being made. According to the commenter, the 2011 RH SIP indicates
Regarding New Mexico, CalPortland noted that even though the State's Class I areas were not projected to meet the URP, EPA approved the State's RP analysis because uncontrollable sources such as natural wildfires, wind-blown dust, and emissions from Mexico were significant contributors to regional haze.
CalPortland added that EPA also approved California's RP analysis even though the State's Class I areas did not all meet the URP. The commenter reproduced a 17-line paragraph that it asserted was the full extent of California's RP analysis for 35 facilities that emit more than 100 tons per year of SO
EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that we are holding Arizona to a higher standard than other states. As described elsewhere in this rule, EPA finds that Arizona's RP analysis was not adequate to comply with the requirements of the RHR. This determination is not inconsistent with our findings in New Mexico, California and Hawaii.
In the case of New Mexico, the State's plan
Moreover, the commenter is making an incomplete presentation of the RP analysis in the California RH SIP. Chapter 4 of California's RH SIP
Specifically, Earthjustice supported EPA's proposed disapproval of the State's conclusion that it would be unreasonable: (1) To reduce coarse mass or fine soil emissions from any sources, (2) to require any emissions reductions
Regarding the comment that it is premature to determine that no additional controls are required on some sources, EPA finds that our four-factor analyses, along with the information provided by the State, are sufficient to conclude that it is not reasonable to impose additional air pollution controls on the following source categories for the purposes of ensuring reasonable progress: mobile sources, primary organic aerosol sources, VOC sources and point sources of SO
EPA acknowledges the commenter's assertion that we should maintain a meaningful distinction between BART and non-BART sources when making control technology determinations. However, we also note that there is substantial overlap in the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to BART and non-BART sources. In particular, the CAA and the RHR require consideration of the costs of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance and the remaining useful life of the source for both BART and non-BART sources.
Although the existing wet FGD was upgraded in 2007, the scope and precise nature of the upgrades are unclear. Therefore, we have included wet FGD upgrades as a control option in our SO
In addition, the commenter provided estimates of visibility improvement and
NPS asserted that additional emission controls should be required at Springerville Units 1 and 2 in order for Arizona to achieve reasonable progress. While conceding that the RP analysis differs from the BART analysis, the commenter indicated that there is also substantial overlap between these analyses and it can be informative to consider relevant BART guidance and examples in conducting RP analyses. Accordingly, the commenter analyzed the cost-effectiveness and visibility benefits of potential additional SO
Earthjustice noted that Springerville is the second largest source of SO
We also disagree with commenters' assertions that our use of a 7-percent interest rate and 20-year lifetime have resulted in inflated or overestimated control costs. For cost analyses related to government regulations, an appropriate “social” interest (discount) rate should be used. The latest real interest rate for cost-effectiveness analyses published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is 2.8 percent for a 20-year period (Revised January 2008). EPA calculated capital recoveries using 3-percent and 7-percent interest rates in determining cost-effectiveness for the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze regulations. We consider our use of 7 percent over a 20-year period to be consistent within the context of Regional Haze regulations, and to result in a reasonable estimate of control costs.
Although the existing dry FGDs have been upgraded recently, the scope and precise nature of the upgrades is unclear. As a result, we agree with NPS's assertion that additional upgrades should be considered. Therefore, we have included dry FGD upgrades as a control option in our SO
With regard to NO
In contrast, three other commenters (TEP, ADEQ and PCC) stated that EPA is not justified in its proposed disapproval of Arizona's finding that it is not reasonable to require additional NO
PCC added that EPA cannot disapprove the State's RP determination for the Phoenix Cement Plant without first concluding that a four-factor analysis under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(l)(i)(A) would have indicated that additional emissions controls at PCC are needed to improve visibility in the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area. The commenter stated that there is nothing in the proposal or rulemaking docket that indicates that EPA has found that the Phoenix Cement Plant contributes to visibility impairment in a Class I area, or that additional emissions controls at the Phoenix Cement Plant would improve visibility in a Class I area.
The commenter (CalPortland) asserted that on its face, this differential treatment is unreasonable and does not make sense in the context of the determination of RPGs. The commenter expressed the opinion that the original analysis conducted by Arizona is legally sufficient and should be approved.
PCC similarly asserted that the absence of a four-factor analysis for non-BART point sources of NO
CalPortland also speculated that perhaps EPA is concerned that Arizona's RH SIP does not contain an explicit, source-specific four-factor analysis for Rillito. The commenter stated that such a concern would be unfounded because the applicable guidelines do not require a full four-factor analysis for every potential source (citing
The commenter (CalPortland) further asserted that, even if a four-factor analysis were required for the Rillito plant, it would be unreasonable to disapprove the SIP on this basis because the significant analysis contained in Arizona's RH SIP fits within the framework of a four-factor analysis and is consistent with the analysis conducted by New Mexico and approved by EPA. According to the commenter, New Mexico's reasonable progress demonstration relied in part on WRAP's
Moreover, the fact that nitrate-driven visibility impairment is projected to decrease at Class I areas such as Saguaro National Park does not remove the requirement to perform a complete RP analysis. Given the State's decision to focus its RP analysis on point and area sources of NO
The opposing commenter (CalPortland) asserted that the 2011 RH SIP complies with the Act's LTS requirements. The commenter stated that EPA's conclusion that the State's BART and reasonable progress determinations are insufficient is not a valid reason to disapprove the LTS. Citing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the commenter contended that EPA does not propose to find, nor can it, that the State's LTS is insufficient to meet the RPGs established by the State.
This commenter (CalPortland) also asserted that the proposed disapproval was incorrect when it indicated that the State's LTS does not include all measures needed to achieve its allotment of emission reductions agreed upon through the WRAP process. The commenter stated that page 178 of the 2011 RH SIP indicates that Arizona and neighboring states agreed that the implementation of BART and other existing measures in state regional haze plans were sufficient. According to the commenter, the states that participated in the WRAP process are in the best position to determine whether each other's plans are sufficient, and they agreed that Arizona's SIP is sufficient.
The other two elements of Arizona's LTS that we proposed to disapprove pertain to consideration of emissions
CalPortland asserted that, even if EPA found Arizona's BART and RP analyses to be insufficient, such a determination would not be a lawful reason to find that the Arizona SIP submittals do not comply with the interstate transport visibility requirement. The commenter contended that EPA did not propose that the Arizona SIP interferes with measures in another state's SIP to protect visibility.
CEI argued that EPA failed to articulate how Arizona interferes with visibility protection measures required by the CAA of downwind states. The commenter interpreted section XI (“EPA's Evaluation of Arizona's Provisions for Interstate Transport of Pollutants”) of our December 21, 2012, proposal to mean that any emission of haze pollutants above the levels assumed by the WRAP modeling constituted interference with downwind attainment. The commenter asserted that this approach violates the proportionality “requirement” of the D.C. Circuit Court's decision in
This analysis is not inconsistent with the
Furthermore, even if the concept of “proportionality” set out in the
Finally, we note that ADEQ asserts in section 11.8 (“Emission Reductions with Respect to Out-of-State Class I Areas”) of the Arizona RH SIP Supplement that its revised demonstration showing reasonable progress at Arizona's Class I areas is adequate to achieve the necessary reductions in visibility impairment in Class I areas in neighboring states. However, the vast majority of the deficiencies in the Arizona RH SIP, which led to our proposed disapproval for the interstate transport visibility requirement, remain. Accordingly, we are finalizing our disapproval of the State's SIP revisions for the interstate transport visibility requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 1997 PM
PCC argued that EPA did not satisfy tribal consultation requirements that apply to the proposed disapproval of the
Under Executive Order 13175 the term “`[p]olicies that have tribal implications' refers to (among other things) “regulations . . . and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes . . .”
Finally, we note that we sent our initial analysis of potential controls at the Phoenix Cement Plant to PCC on November 6, 2012.
We also disagree with the commenter's suggestion that meeting the URP is a requirement of the RHR. The URP is not a presumptive target and a state or EPA may set RPGs that provide for less progress than the URP if those RPGs are demonstrated to be reasonable (and achievement of the URP to be unreasonable) based upon an analysis of the four RP factors.
In this instance, ADEQ identified NO
This disapproval is based on the inadequacy of ADEQ's overall analysis for point sources of NO
Pursuant to EPA guidance for setting RP goals, determining the sources that contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area is a pre-requisite to conducting a 4-factor analysis. From perspective, the modeling has shown Kiln 4 is not a contributor to visibility impairment and as such, should be excluded from the requirement for a 4-factor analysis.
In evaluating ADEQ's four-factor analysis for the Phoenix Cement Plant, we did take into consideration the RP Guidance, which recommends use of the BART Guidelines and the Control Cost Manual in performing four-factor analyses.
In any case, our disapproval of the Arizona RH SIP with regard to non-BART sources of NO
As explained in the guidance document cited by FMMI, the most straightforward examples of inherent limitations are for single-emission unit type operations, whereas such limitations are more difficult to identify for larger sources involving multiple emission units and complex operations.
EPA is taking final action to approve in part and disapprove in part the remaining portion of the Arizona RH SIP. Along with our final rule dated December 5, 2012, that addressed three major BART sources (Apache, Cholla and Coronado), today's action completes our evaluation of the Arizona RH SIP for the first planning period through 2018. In this section of the notice, we provide a summary of our evaluation of the BART analyses and determinations, RPGs, and Interstate Transport followed by a description of our legal obligation to promulgate a FIP to fill the gap left by the disapproved elements of the State's plan. EPA acknowledges ADEQ's efforts in developing the RH SIP Supplement that resulted in approval of additional elements of the Arizona RH SIP. We look forward to continuing our collaborative working relationship with ADEQ to resolve the outstanding issues and to ensure the Arizona RH SIP includes all the elements of a regional haze program.
In today's final action, we are approving much of Arizona's RH SIP including all the supporting elements, many of the State's BART-eligibility and BART-subject findings, two of the State's BART control determinations, aspects of the reasonable progress analysis, and most of the mandatory factors in the LTS. As a result of the RH SIP Supplement, we are approving an emissions inventory for 2008; some aspects of a reasonable progress analysis (i.e., decision to focus on SO
We are disapproving Arizona's determinations that Sundt Generating Station Unit 4 is not BART-eligible; that the Nelson Lime Plant is not subject to BART; that the Miami and Hayden Smelters are not subject to BART for NO
EPA is finalizing our disapproval of the State's RPGs for the 20-percent worst days and 20-percent best days for three reasons. First, the Arizona RH SIP does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and (ii) because it does demonstrate, based on an analysis of the four RP factors, that the State's RPGs are reasonable, while achievement of the URP is not reasonable. In particular, the State has not demonstrated that it is reasonable not to require any additional controls on point sources of NO
However, we are approving certain elements of the State's RP analysis. In particular, EPA is approving the State's decision to focus on NO
EPA is also approving the State's decision not to require additional controls on point sources of SO
However, EPA is not approving ADEQ's RP analyses and determinations for area sources of SO
Similarly, ADEQ did not complete four-factor analyses for most of the point sources of NO
As discussed in section III.D (“Overview of Final Action on Regional Haze and Interstate Transport: Interstate Transport”) and section IV.A.8 (“EPA's Response to Comments: Arizona's Provisions for Interstate Transport of Pollutants”) of this final rule, EPA finds that the Arizona SIP, as revised by Arizona's 2007 and 2009 Transport SIPs
This disapproval triggers the obligation under CAA section 110(c)(1) for EPA to promulgate a FIP for the interstate transport visibility requirement for these NAAQS within two years from the effective date of this final rule. We anticipate that this FIP obligation could be satisfied by a combination of the measures that we previously approved (i.e., for Apache, Cholla, and Coronado power plants), the measures we are approving today with respect to the SIP, and EPA's promulgation of FIPs for the disapproved elements of the Arizona RH Plan. Alternately, this FIP obligation could be resolved by EPA approval of subsequent SIP revisions from ADEQ that either resolve the deficiencies in the SIP or provide a demonstration that emissions from the State's sources and activities will not have the prohibited impacts under the existing SIP.
CAA section 110(c)(1) requires EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years after finding that a state has failed to make a required submission or disapproving a SIP submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies within that two-year period. As explained above, due to our previous finding that Arizona had failed to make part of the required regional haze submission, EPA is already subject to a FIP duty under section 110(c)(1) with respect to the regional haze requirements for Arizona. Moreover, we are also subject to a set of court-ordered deadlines for approval of a SIP and/or promulgation of a FIP that collectively meet the regional haze implementation plan requirements for Arizona, based on this FIP obligation.
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the CAA (CAA sections 171–193) or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a sanction's clock. Arizona's 308 Regional Haze SIP was not submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, today's action will not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP revisions under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but simply approves certain State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves certain State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA has determined that the partial approval and partial disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action approves certain pre-existing requirements, and disapproves certain other pre-existing requirements, under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves certain state requirements, and disapproves certain other state requirements, for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP on which EPA is taking action would not apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Nonetheless, we note that the Phoenix Cement Plant is owned by the tribal government of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC). Our disapproval of ADEQ's determination not to require additional controls on this source leaves open the possibility that this source could be regulated in a future regional haze FIP. Therefore, consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 2, 2011), we have shared our initial analyses with SRPMIC and PCC to ensure that the tribe has an early opportunity to provide feedback on such a potential FIP. In addition EPA Region 9 has offered opportunities for meetings and formal consultation.
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This partial approval and partial disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply approves certain state requirements, and disapproves certain other state requirements, for inclusion into the SIP.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The EPA has determined that this action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 4, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(154) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(158) The following plan was submitted May 3, 2013, by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
(
(
(
(
(
(l)
(m)
(n)
(e) * * *
(2) The following portions of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP are disapproved because they do not meet the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.301 through 51.308:
(i) The determination that Unit I4 at TEP's Irvington [Sundt] Generating Station is not BART-eligible;
(ii) The portions of the long-term strategy for regional haze related to emission reductions for out-of-state Class I areas, emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal and enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures.
(iii) The NO
(iv) The NO
(v) The NO
(vi) The BART compliance provisions for all BART emissions limits at Units ST1, ST2 and ST3 at AEPCO Apache Generating Station, Units 2, 3, and 4 at APS Cholla Power Plant, and Units 1 and 2 at SRP Coronado Generating Station.
(g) On May 3, 2013, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted the “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Regional Haze Under Section 308 of the Federal Regional Haze Rule” (“Arizona Regional Haze SIP Supplement”).
(1) The following portions of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP Supplement are disapproved because they do not meet the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.301 through 51.308:
(i) The determination that the Chemical Lime Company's Nelson Lime Plant is not subject-to-BART;
(ii) The determination that the Freeport McMoRan Miami Inc (FMMI) Smelter is not subject to BART for NO
(iii) The determination that existing controls constitute BART for SO
(iv) The determination that the ASARCO Hayden smelter is not subject to BART for NO
(v) The determination that existing controls constitute BART for SO
(vi) The reasonable progress goals for the first planning period;
(vii) The determination that no additional controls for point sources of NO
(viii) The determination that no additional controls for area sources of NO
(2) [Reserved]
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Final rule.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is revising its regulations to foster competition and transparency in ancillary services markets. The Commission is revising certain aspects of its current market-based rate regulations, ancillary services requirements under the
This rule is effective November 27, 2013.
1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is revising its regulations to enhance competition and transparency in ancillary services markets. The Commission is revising certain aspects of its current market-based rate regulations, ancillary services requirements under the
2. First, the Commission reforms the
3. Second, we adopt reforms to provide greater transparency with regard to reserve requirements for Regulation and Frequency Response. Under the requirements of the
4. With this information, a transmission customer will be in a position to demonstrate to the public utility transmission provider that the resource(s) it selects for self-supply are comparable to those of the public utility transmission provider. As such, these reforms are necessary to address the potential for undue discrimination against transmission customers choosing to self-supply Regulation and Frequency Response, including through purchases from third-parties. Acknowledging the speed and accuracy of the resources used to provide this service will help to ensure that self-supply requirements of the public utility transmission provider do not unduly discriminate by requiring customers to procure a different amount of regulation reserves than the particular speed and accuracy characteristics of the resources in question justify (i.e., to be comparable, a customer self-supply arrangement that relies on slower, less accurate resources than those of the public utility transmission provider should probably involve a larger reserve requirement than would a purchase from the transmission provider, and vice versa). Moreover, as the Commission has previously stated, because most generation-based ancillary services can be provided by many of the generators connected to the transmission system, some customers may be able to provide or procure such services more economically than the transmission provider can.
5. Finally, we adopt reforms to our accounting and reporting regulations to add new electric plant and operation and maintenance (O&M) expense accounts for energy storage devices. These reforms are necessary to accommodate the increasing availability of these new resources for use in public utility operations. These reforms are also necessary to ensure that the activities and costs of new energy
6. The Commission has taken numerous steps over the last several decades to foster the development of competitive wholesale energy markets by ensuring non-discriminatory access and comparable treatment of resources in jurisdictional wholesale markets.
7. The Commission subsequently acknowledged in
8. In its ongoing effort to enhance competitive markets as a means to ensure just and reasonable rates, including those for ancillary services, the Commission has continued to evaluate its
9. However, as the record in this proceeding demonstrates, the restriction on sales of ancillary services at market-based rates to a public utility for purposes of satisfying its OATT requirements has proven to be an
10. Building off the Commission's action in Order No. 755, which found that accounting for a given resource's speed and accuracy can help ensure just and reasonable rates and prevent against undue discrimination, in the NOPR, the Commission also proposed to require each public utility transmission provider to include provisions in its OATT explaining how it will determine regulation service reserve requirements for transmission customers, including those that choose to self-supply regulation service, in a manner that takes into account the speed and accuracy of resources used.
11. Finally, the Commission proposed to modify its accounting regulations to increase transparency for energy storage facilities. While the Commission's accounting and reporting requirements associated with the USofA do not dictate the ratemaking decisions of this Commission or State Commissions, these accounting and reporting requirements nevertheless support the rate oversight needs of both this Commission and State Commissions. This information is important in developing and monitoring rates, making policy decisions, compliance and enforcement initiatives, and informing the Commission and the public about the activities of entities that are subject to these accounting and reporting requirements.
12. As noted above, the Commission's
13. Specifically, this Final Rule allows a resource with market-based rate authority for sales of energy and capacity to sell imbalance services at market-based rates to a public utility transmission provider in the same balancing authority area, or to a public utility transmission provider in a different balancing authority area, if those areas have implemented intra-hour scheduling for transmission service. In addition, upon consideration of the comments to the NOPR, this Final Rule also allows a resource with market-based rate authority for sales of energy and capacity to sell operating reserve services at market-based rates to a public utility transmission provider in the same balancing authority area, or to a public utility transmission provider in a different balancing authority area, if those areas have implemented intra-hour scheduling for transmission service that supports the delivery of operating reserve resources from one balancing authority area to another. As a result, the only remaining limitation on third-party market-based sales of ancillary services is on sales of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control service and Regulation and Frequency Response service to a public utility that is purchasing ancillary services to satisfy its own OATT requirements absent a showing of lack of market power or adequate mitigation of potential market power. In that regard, third-party sales of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control service and Regulation and Frequency Response service to public utility transmission providers will be permitted at rates not to exceed the buying public utility transmission provider's OATT rate for the same service. Further, to the extent a transmission provider chooses to procure either Reactive Supply and Voltage Control service or Regulation and Frequency Response service through a competitive solicitation that meets the requirements of this Final Rule, third-party sellers of these services may sell at market-based rates.
14. While the record in this proceeding was insufficient for the Commission to relieve the restrictions for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control service and Regulation and Frequency Response service in the same manner as Imbalance and Operating reserves, we remain interested in exploring the technical, economic and market issues concerning the provision of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control service and Regulation and Frequency Response service. As such, the Commission intends to gather further information regarding the provision of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control service and Regulation and Frequency Response service in a separate, new proceeding.
15. Thus, while we decline to adopt some of the reforms proposed in the NOPR based on the record in this proceeding, we expect that this Final Rule substantially enhances the overall opportunities for third-parties to compete to make sales of ancillary services while continuing to limit the exercise of market power.
16. We will first discuss the market power analyses used to establish authority to sell at market-based rates, followed by a discussion of alternative cost-based mitigation in the event a market participant cannot show it lacks market power for a specific product or service.
17. The Commission analyzes horizontal market power
18. Passing both the wholesale market share screen and the pivotal supplier screen creates a rebuttable presumption that the seller does not possess horizontal market power with respect to sales of energy or capacity; failing either screen creates a rebuttable presumption that the seller possesses horizontal market power for such sales.
19. Three of the key components of the analysis of horizontal market power are the definition of products, the determination of appropriate geographic scope of the relevant market for each product, and the identification of the uncommitted generation supply within the relevant geographic market. In Order No. 697, the Commission adopted a default relevant geographic market for sales of energy and capacity.
20. In the NOPR, the Commission analyzed whether passage of the existing market-based rate screens for sales of energy and capacity can adequately demonstrate lack of market power for sales of ancillary services, based on the relevant characteristics of resources capable of providing each ancillary service. Based on this analysis, the Commission proposed that only the two imbalance ancillary services (Energy Imbalance and Generator Imbalance), and no other ancillary services, could be encompassed by the existing market-based rate screens.
21. As discussed in more detail below, commenters addressed both the Commission's ancillary service-by-ancillary service analysis of this issue, and the proposal to apply the existing market power screens to only the imbalance ancillary services.
22. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that resources capable of providing Energy Imbalance and Generator Imbalance do not appear to require any different technical equipment or suffer from any different geographical limitations compared to resources that provide energy or capacity. As a result, the Commission proposed that sellers passing existing market power analyses should be permitted to sell not only energy and capacity in the relevant geographic market(s), but also Energy Imbalance and Generator Imbalance services at market-based rates. The Commission sought comments on, among other things, any unique technical requirements or limitations that might apply to the provision of the imbalance ancillary services that might impact the Commission's proposal to find that passage of the existing market power screens also indicates a lack of market power for imbalance services.
23. The majority of commenters support the Commission's proposal. AWEA, Beacon, California Storage Alliance, EEI, Electricity Consumers, EPSA, ESA, Iberdrola, Hydro Association, Public Interest Organizations, Powerex, Solar Energy Association, Shell Energy, Southern California Edison, and WSPP support the NOPR proposal to revise the Commission's regulations governing market-based rate authorizations to provide that sellers passing existing market-based rate analyses in a given geographic market should be granted a rebuttable presumption that they lack horizontal market power for sales of Energy Imbalance and Generator Imbalance ancillary services in that market.
24. ESA, Electricity Consumers, Beacon, and EEI, among others, agree that there are no special technical requirements or other limitations that apply to the provision of the Energy Imbalance or Generator Imbalance ancillary services.
25. WSPP and Powerex, with Iberdrola concurring by reference, urge the Commission to clarify that this proposal includes the capacity associated with balancing energy sales, not just the energy.
26. Solar Energy Association states conceptual support for the proposal, but argues that sellers may have market power in certain ancillary services markets even if not in energy or capacity markets, and urges the Commission to police markets that are created due to the adoption of a rebuttable presumption of lack of market power.
27. Two commenters express concern with the NOPR proposal. TAPS objects to the NOPR's preliminary finding that any available unit in a given geographic market is capable of providing energy that helps address imbalances in that market. TAPS contends that significant technical limitations limit the resources that can provide imbalance services absent special arrangements like pseudo-ties, and therefore the first tier resources included in the horizontal market power screen are not generally available to provide intra-hour imbalance service. TAPS asserts that Order No. 890–A supports this contention by allegedly finding “that generation outside the control area can provide imbalance service when pseudo-tied and thus subject to within-area dispatch control.”
28. TAPS asserts that, in non-RTO regions, imbalance service is typically provided by the energy associated with regulation and operating reserves, and thus resources capable of providing imbalance services would necessarily be subject to the same technical requirements as the NOPR described for regulation and operating reserves.
29. TAPS further rejects the Commission's assertion in the NOPR that this proposal is consistent with the decision in Order No. 890–A to base cost-based imbalance charges in the OATT on the incremental cost of the last 10 MW dispatched by the transmission provider for any purpose, without imposing any requirement that this last 10 MW be based on resources with any particular capabilities.
30. Morgan Stanley contends that the existing market power screens are flawed even in their application to energy and capacity products and thus should not be applied to additional products. Morgan Stanley argues that the existing market power screens in some cases fail to assess the full import capability into a given geographic market, and thus the true market size. Morgan Stanley ultimately argues that a revised market power screen “should include any transmission located outside of the relevant market area, but which is interconnected and over which there is transfer capacity.”
31. The Commission will adopt its proposal with modification. The Commission will allow third-party sellers passing existing market power screens to sell Energy Imbalance and Generator Imbalance services at market-based rates to a public utility transmission provider within the same balancing authority area, or to a public utility transmission provider in a different balancing authority area, if those areas have implemented intra-hour scheduling for transmission service.
32. Energy Imbalance and Generator Imbalance services are a subset of a broader set of ancillary services offered by a public utility transmission provider to manage system conditions and ensure reliable transmission service. Energy Imbalance and Generator Imbalance services involve the balancing of differences between scheduled and actual delivery of energy or output of generation over an hour.
33. In practice, public utility transmission providers often have a portfolio of resources, some owned and some purchased from third-parties, from which they provide capacity, energy, and ancillary services. This portfolio typically includes resources with automatic generation control (AGC) equipment capable of handling both moment-by-moment frequency adjustments and longer duration imbalance needs, as well as other capacity and energy resources that may only be capable of addressing longer duration imbalance needs because they are not equipped with AGC. These longer duration resources may include block purchases from third parties that are dispatched or otherwise scheduled at varying timeframes. The relative amount of AGC-controlled and other resources used by a public utility transmission provider for intra-hour balancing will depend on the resources available and the public utility transmission provider's operating practices.
34. In the NOPR, the Commission did not separately discuss this range of resources and, instead, preliminarily concluded that there are no unique technical requirements or limitations that distinguish the resources capable of providing energy and capacity from those capable of providing imbalance services. The majority of commenters agree with the Commission's preliminary conclusion, arguing that the set of resources available to follow imbalances over an hour is the same set of resources capable of providing energy and capacity. However, TAPS disagrees, arguing that the set of resources capable of providing imbalance services must have a special relationship with the control area operator in order to supply changing within-the-hour energy needs.
35. We understand TAPS' argument to be that resources used to provide imbalance service must be able to respond to a dynamic four- or five-second signal, which might require special arrangements in order to permit imbalance sales outside of the resource's home balancing authority area such that even the ability to submit transmission schedules on a 15-minute basis would be insufficient to provide intra-hour imbalance energy.
36. Under the
37. The question before the Commission here is whether the set of resources considered available to provide energy and capacity in a market power analysis is sufficiently similar to the set of resources capable of providing imbalance services. Based on the record before us in which numerous commenters agree that the resources are sufficiently similar and given that intra-hour transmission schedules are currently being offered by a number of public utility transmission providers, and must be offered by all public utility transmission providers under Order No. 764 on or before November 12, 2013,
38. With regard to TAPS' additional comments in support of its basic argument, as stated above, just because a public utility transmission provider may have chosen to rely on the energy associated with regulation or operating reserves to meet imbalances, it does not follow that those are the only resources capable of providing imbalance services. Moreover, TAPS' reference to a portion of a passage from Order No. 890 referring to demand costs of providing imbalance energy being recoverable through regulation (Schedule 3) and operating reserve (Schedules 5 and 6) services is not dispositive here. The rate mechanisms used by a public utility transmission provider to recover the cost of capacity associated with providing Energy Imbalance or Generator Imbalance service do not precisely reflect the technical capabilities of resources available to provide the imbalance services. There is no requirement, in past Commission pronouncements or otherwise, that imbalance services be provided only from resources capable of providing regulation or operating reserves. Indeed, TAPS criticizes the NOPR for asserting the Commission's proposal was consistent with the decision in Order No. 890–A to base cost-based imbalance charges on the incremental cost of the last 10 MW dispatched by the transmission provider for any purpose, without imposing any requirement that this last 10 MW be based on resources with any particular capabilities.
39. TAPS also cites Order No. 890–A as finding that generation outside a control area can provide imbalance
40. We also find the opposing arguments of Morgan Stanley to be beyond the scope of this proceeding. Morgan Stanley does not appear to object to the use of the same market power screens for energy, capacity and imbalance services. Rather, Morgan Stanley argues that the existing indicative screens should be reformulated to include greater transmission imports than are currently assumed. Arguments as to the make-up of the existing market power screens are beyond the scope of this proceeding. The question before us in this proceeding is whether the resources in a given geographic market capable of providing imbalance ancillary services are sufficiently similar to the resources capable of providing energy and capacity that the same market power analysis can apply to both sets of products. Moreover, the Commission already permits applicants to demonstrate that the relevant geographic market is larger or smaller than that default.
41. Accordingly, this Final Rule establishes that sellers found to lack market power in a geographic market, and which are granted market-based rate authority to make sales of energy and capacity, will also be granted market-based rate authority for sales of Energy Imbalance and Generator Imbalance services to public utility transmission providers within the same balancing authority area, or to public utility transmission providers in different balancing authority areas, if those areas allow transmission customers to modify or create transmission schedules within the hour. Because, as explained above, such scheduling practices enable the delivery of within-hour imbalance services from one balancing authority area to another, their use ensures that the first-tier resources included in the existing market power screens can compete with resources in the home balancing authority area, and thus that the existing market power screens can be applied to imbalance services without modification. This finding applies both to sellers that currently have a market-based rate tariff on file and applicants seeking market-based rate authority. For administrative convenience, we make this change to the Commission's ancillary services pricing policy effective as of the effective date of this Final Rule (120 days after publication in the
42. In response to WSPP, we clarify that this authorization to undertake sales at market-based rates may include both the capacity and the energy associated with providing Energy Imbalance and Generator Imbalance services. Imbalance services are products designed to address differences between scheduled and actual deliveries and withdrawals of energy. As such, they can only be provided by ensuring the availability of capacity and then increasing or decreasing the energy output from that capacity as necessary to address these differences.
43. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to allow the existing market-based rate screens to be applied to Energy Imbalance and Generator Imbalance services, but sought comment on whether the characteristics of resources used to provide the other ancillary services would necessitate a market power analysis based on a different geographic market or different set of resources as compared to those analyzed to determine market power for sales of energy and capacity.
44. With regard to Operating Reserve-Spinning and Operating Reserve-Supplemental, the NOPR discussed the technical considerations, such as minimum ramp and start-up rates for off-line resources and the ability for extended operation below fully loaded set point for online resources, that seemed to indicate that fewer resources would be capable of providing these ancillary services as compared to the set of resources capable of providing energy or capacity. With regard to Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources, the NOPR discussed the technical and geographic considerations that generally limit the resources capable of providing this ancillary service as compared with the broader set of resources capable of providing energy or capacity. With regard to Regulation and Frequency Response, the Commission discussed the technical requirements, such as automatic generation control (AGC) equipment, that limit the set of resources capable of supplying this ancillary service.
45. A number of commenters argue for application of the existing market power screens to Operating Reserve-Spinning and Operating Reserve-Supplemental.
46. WSPP argues that the same considerations that led the Commission to believe that the rebuttable presumption should be extended to the imbalance ancillary services also apply to the operating reserve ancillary services. WSPP further asserts that all of these ancillary services are widely deliverable and that all generators capable of being redispatched to higher or lower set-points within a scheduling window are capable of providing these ancillary services.
47. EEI argues that except for variable energy resources, essentially the same set of resources evaluated as competing supply under the existing market power screens possess the required technical capabilities to provide operating reserves.
48. While Powerex agrees that resources capable of providing spinning and non-spinning reserves may be limited by response time requirements, Powerex argues that the existing market power screens nonetheless can be applied to operating reserve services.
49. With respect to Regulation and Frequency Response, some commenters argue that passage of the existing market power screens indicates lack of market power for that service. For example, while EPSA agrees that the market power of sellers of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control service cannot be gauged by the existing market power screens due to significant technical and geographic impediments, it argues that Regulation and Frequency Response service is merely a derivative of a resource's ability to generate energy. Accordingly, EPSA argues that application of the existing market power screens to this ancillary service would be appropriate.
50. Powerex agrees that the existing market power screens could be applied to Regulation and Frequency Response service. Powerex believes that technical improvements such as the dynamic scheduling system adopted by some users of the Western Interconnection facilitate widespread delivery of regulating reserves, thus overcoming any locational requirements for that service, while any technical impediments could be overcome because AGC or equivalent power electronic controls could be added by most market participants if the markets provide correct price signals.
51. FTC Staff urges the Commission to recognize that even though a particular resource may not currently have the ability to provide a given ancillary service due to lack of relevant equipment, if such equipment could be installed in a timely fashion in response to high prices, then such resource should be considered a potential competitor for purposes of market power analysis. Accordingly, FTC Staff suggests that the Commission revise its market power analysis to incorporate as existing market participants those potential entrants that are likely to enter a given ancillary service market (i.e., install needed equipment such as AGC) rapidly and profitably should market prices justify such entry.
52. EEI argues that, before extending application of the existing market power screens to Regulation and Frequency Response, the Commission should separate this service into two separate ancillary services: primary frequency control and secondary frequency control. EEI argues that secondary frequency control, which it labels as Regulation, is a prime candidate to be extended the rebuttable presumption (i.e., to be subject to the existing market power screens).
53. Two parties filed comments opposing the application of existing market power screens to non-imbalance ancillary services. Southern California Edison and TAPS state that they agree with the NOPR's reasoning as to why the existing market power screens cannot be applied to non-imbalance ancillary services.
54. Upon consideration of the comments to the NOPR, and as discussed more fully below, the Commission will allow third-party sellers passing existing market power screens to sell Operating Reserve-Spinning and Operating Reserve-Supplemental services at market-based rates to a public utility transmission provider within the same balancing authority area, or to a public utility transmission provider in a different balancing authority area, if those areas have implemented intra-hour scheduling for transmission service that supports the delivery of operating reserve resources from one balancing authority area to another. Commenters have persuaded us that to the extent there are technical requirements and limitations associated with operating reserves, they do not materially distinguish resources capable of providing energy and capacity from those capable of providing operating reserves. As with the imbalance services, however, the Commission finds that the delivery of operating reserves from one balancing authority area to another may be limited by hourly scheduling practices in place within certain regions, which could impact the assumption in the existing market power screens that first-tier resources are able to compete with home balancing authority area resources. Therefore, the Commission will allow third-party sellers passing existing market power screens to sell these services to public utility transmission providers to the extent within-hour transmission service scheduling practices, including intra-hour transmission scheduling mandated by Order No. 764, support the delivery of operating reserves from one balancing authority area to another.
55. In contrast, the Commission affirms the preliminary finding in the NOPR that the set of resources capable of providing Regulation and Frequency Response service and Reactive Supply and Voltage Control service would differ significantly from the broader set of resources capable of supplying energy and capacity. Accordingly, the
56. Operating Reserve-Spinning and Operating Reserve-Supplemental are products designed to serve load temporarily in the event of contingencies. As such, sellers must ensure the availability of capacity sufficient to address a contingency event and, if the contingency occurs, energy must be supplied from that capacity. While the NOPR preliminarily found that the operating reserve products appeared to require the availability of resources with relatively fast ramping capabilities, and in the case of off-line resources used for operating reserve-supplemental, relatively fast start-up capabilities as well,
57. Many comments to the NOPR make the case that the flexibility and response time requirements associated with operating reserve services are not so significant that the universe of resources that can provide these services is meaningfully different than the universe of resources used to assess energy and capacity market power. While traditional generation scheduling practices only require the resources that provide energy and capacity to be able to change output levels once an hour, the record in this proceeding indicates that most resources can change output levels on shorter time scales. In other words, most conventional resources can change output in response to contingency events on a time scale shorter than the typical hourly scheduling window, even if in the past they have only been selling hourly block energy and capacity. Therefore, the Commission will allow third-party sellers passing existing market power screens for energy and capacity for a given market to also sell Operating Reserves-Spinning and Operating Reserves-Supplemental services at market-based rates to a public utility transmission provider within the same balancing authority area, or to a public utility transmission provider in a different balancing authority area, if within-hour transmission scheduling practices in those areas support the delivery of operating reserves from one balancing authority area to another.
58. We note that our approach for market-based sales of operating reserves differs slightly from the reforms adopted above for sales of imbalance services. We have found above that the existence of 15-minute scheduling in a region renders the set of resources capable of supplying imbalance services substantially similar to the set of resources capable of providing energy and capacity so that the same market power screens can be applied to both sets of services. This may not be the case in all circumstances for potential sellers of operating reserves and, therefore, we require such entities to explain in their market-based rate applications for such authority how the scheduling practices in their regions support the use of operating reserves. For example, while 15-minute scheduling might be sufficient for Operating Reserve-Supplemental because this service only requires designated resources to be available within a short period of time,
59. The Commission affirms the preliminary finding in the NOPR that the more stringent technical and geographic considerations associated with the regulation and reactive power ancillary services suggest that they are not simple combinations of basic energy and capacity products. Most commenters addressing this issue agree that the set of resources considered by the existing market power screens would differ too significantly from the set of resources that would be considered by market power analyses designed specifically for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control service.
60. While some commenters do argue that the existing market power screens are adequate for Regulation and Frequency Response service, we are not persuaded by their arguments on the record here. We continue to believe that significant technical requirements, such as the need for AGC equipment, limit the set of resources capable of supplying this ancillary service. While we agree in principle with FTC Staff's comments that potential competitors could be viewed as existing competitors for purposes of market power analysis if it is known that they can install needed equipment rapidly and profitably in response to appropriate price signals, the record does not conclusively support the notion that such equipment upgrades (e.g., to install AGC equipment in an existing generator) can be accomplished in such a manner. Although Powerex asserts that AGC or equivalent power electronic controls could be added by most market participants if the markets provide correct price signals, and WSPP asserts that the addition of AGC is an economic decision, we are not persuaded based on the limited information in the record before us. Also, the record indicates that third-party sellers of Regulation and Frequency Response service might need to enter into or facilitate special arrangements between neighboring balancing authorities, such as dynamic scheduling or pseudo-tie arrangements, in order to make sales outside of their home balancing authority area.
61. Accordingly, because the record before us does not support a modification at this time, the
62. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed a new optional market power screen solely applicable to ancillary services, together with a limited new reporting requirement that would provide potential sellers of ancillary services with the information needed to develop market power analyses using that optional market power screen.
63. In order to provide sellers with information as to the buyer's aggregate requirement for an ancillary service, the Commission proposed to require each public utility transmission provider to publicly post on its OASIS the aggregate amount (MW or MVAR, as applicable) of each ancillary service that it has historically required, including any geographic limitations it may face in meeting such ancillary service requirements. For example, a transmission provider may report that it has historically maintained 100 MW of Regulation and Frequency Response reserves for its balancing authority area and 100 MVAR of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control in each of two submarkets within its balancing authority area.
64. Some commenters support the optional market power screen on the basis that it provides a practical alternative to performing a traditional market power analysis, given the data constraints associated with the latter. WSPP, for example, states that the optional market power screen is a constructive response to the disconnection between regulatory market power study requirements and the incapability of market participants to perform those studies due to lack of data.
65. Public Interest Organizations argue that the optional screen is similar in intent to a
66. However, there was no consensus among the commenters supporting the proposed optional market power screen regarding the necessary granularity of the associated reporting requirement. Some commenters, such as WSPP and Shell Energy, argue that postings should reflect a transmission provider's annual peak requirements for ancillary services, rather than annual averages. WSPP argues that posting an annual average would tend to understate requirements for higher periods, thereby skewing screen results in the direction of violations.
67. Conversely, the ESA, Beacon, and California Storage Alliance recommend that public utilities provide seasonal and time-of-day requirements (if any) for each ancillary service versus a single average annual amount and note that this is consistent with the type of data provided by RTOs/ISOs in the open wholesale markets.
68. Some commenters oppose the optional market power screen, arguing that it would yield too many false positives because it does not measure a seller's ability to supply relative to the total potential supply of the overall market. EPSA, for example, argues that the optional screen would routinely result in false-positive indications of market power.
69. Powerex claims that the optional market power screen does not appear workable in certain respects and is likely to result in too many false positives.
70. Morgan Stanley argues that the optional market power screen does not provide a complete picture of an entity's market power and that it is more relevant to compare the amount of supply a seller controls to the total supply available and the total market demand, than it is to compare it to a single buyer's requirements.
71. Other commenters oppose the optional market power screen on the basis that its need and usefulness is unclear. For example, TAPS argues that the usefulness of the optional screen is uncertain, particularly given the acknowledged data limitations. TAPS further argues that one cannot be confident that the proxy would provide a meaningful screen for market power.
72. The California PUC states that is sees no need for alternative methodologies and further argues that a 20 percent threshold is too high for ancillary services.
73. The Commission will not adopt the optional market power screen for ancillary services as proposed in the NOPR. As suggested by EEI, ESPA and others, the fact that the proposed optional screen would not consider the full amount of competing supply available to a buyer likely means that the screen may result in so many false positive indications of potential market power that it would provide little benefit to the effort to foster competition in ancillary service markets.
74. The comments also indicate that establishing the reporting requirements associated with the optional market power screen would not be a trivial task, particularly given the lack of consensus regarding the granularity of information needed. The Commission believes that the costs of developing and imposing this new reporting requirement on transmission providers might not be justified, particularly in light of the other actions taken in this Final Rule. The need for the proposed optional screen, and its associated reporting requirement, is significantly reduced because this Final Rule, as explained above, will permit sellers to apply the existing market power screens to imbalance and operating reserve ancillary services. As such, the Commission has determined not to adopt the optional market power screen and its associated reporting requirement.
75. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to permit sellers unable or unwilling to perform the market power study for ancillary services to propose price caps at or below which sales of Regulation and Frequency Response, Reactive Supply and Voltage Control, Operating Reserve-Spinning, or Operating Reserve-Supplemental service would be allowed where the purchasing entity is a public utility transmission provider purchasing ancillary services to satisfy its OATT requirements to offer ancillary services to its own customers.
76. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed two cost-based mitigation measures as alternatives to the prohibition adopted in
77. There was a range of support for the establishment of a rate cap at the buyer's OATT rate for the same ancillary service. TAPS and Southern California Edison support this proposal outright as an option to enable ancillary service sales.
78. WSPP states that it supports inclusion of this option to enhance flexibility in the sale of ancillary services, but with reservations. WSPP's reservations essentially concern whether existing OATT ancillary services rates provide appropriate price signals. WSPP contends that because reserve sales are from the same units as energy sales, mitigation price caps that
79. Although ESA, Beacon, and California Storage Alliance all support this proposal, they each argue that for this mitigation measure to be successful in fostering robust competitive markets, the Commission must ensure that cost-based schedules for ancillary services, in particular Regulation and Frequency Response, are compared on an “apples-to-apples” basis taking into account resource performance.
80. Some commenters oppose this price cap proposal unless the cap can be raised in some way. For example, Shell Energy argues that a cap based on the buyer's OATT rate would not produce prices high enough to entice competitive supply. Instead, Shell Energy suggests establishment of a price cap set at 200 percent of the buyer's OATT rate for the ancillary service in question.
81. ENBALA argues that a cost-based cap limited to the buying utility's OATT rate might be too restrictive and lead the Commission to scrutinize more agreements than necessary, but ENBALA states that “Reactive Supply and Voltage Control service should be excluded from the regional price cap, being priced by the buying utility's OATT rate to reflect the geographic limitations of the ancillary service.”
82. As one option available to sellers, the Commission will permit market-based sales of Regulation and Frequency Response service and Reactive Supply and Voltage Control service to public utility transmission providers at rates not to exceed the buying public utility transmission provider's OATT rate for the same service.
83. Allowing the sale of ancillary services below the purchasing public utility transmission provider's OATT rate is a reasonable extension of the mitigation measure relied upon by the
84. While a few commenters opine that a cap based on the buyer's OATT rate would not produce prices high enough to entice competitive supply, the Commission finds that, given the reforms adopted elsewhere in this Final Rule, it is appropriate to take the more conservative step of adopting a price cap based on the buyer's OATT rate for sales of Regulation and Frequency Response service and Reactive Supply and Voltage Control service to public utility transmission providers. This measure can be implemented quickly and easily with few administrative burdens on either the Commission or the industry. Alternative proposals by commenters would require more complicated design, analysis, and oversight to ensure that they achieve just and reasonable rates.
85. With respect to the arguments of ESA, Beacon, and California Storage Alliance that for this mitigation measure to be successful, the Commission must ensure that cost-based schedules for ancillary services are compared on an “apples-to-apples” basis taking into account resource performance, the Commission addresses this issue below in sub-section B of this Final Rule.
86. Some commenters, such as ESA, Beacon, and the California Storage Alliance, support the regional OATT rate cap option on the basis that it is a reasonable approximation of the cost of entry.
87. Southern California Edison states that it supports a cap based on the highest OATT rate within the geographic market as long as it is capped at the lesser of (a) the highest OATT rate in the market or (b) three times the median OATT rate in the relevant geographic market. Southern
88. Other commenters criticize the highest OATT rate cap proposal. Some parties, such as WSPP, EPSA, and Powerex, argue that setting caps based on cost-based rates would not allow sellers to recover foregone opportunity costs associated with energy sales and thus would fail to create any incentives for sellers to enter ancillary service markets. They argue that this is particularly true for short-term ancillary service sales, given that opportunity costs vary materially for hourly, daily, monthly, and seasonal periods, but these variations are not reflected in OATT rates and therefore would not be reflected in the cap.
89. For example, Powerex contends that any alternative price cap must be high enough to create economic incentives for potential sellers to forego other opportunities, namely, energy sales.
90. Similarly, EPSA argues that a price cap should include a seller's lost opportunity costs, represented by energy transactions during a recent historical period. EPSA states that it is critically important to include lost opportunity costs, in order to allow a generator to rationally choose between producing energy and not producing energy.
91. WSPP asserts that the Commission's observation that the OATT rate could be indicative of the cost of new entry appears speculative. WSPP contends that a cost-based rate may reflect a fully or substantially depreciated unit, rather than the cost of new construction.
92. Other commenters raise concerns about setting the geographic boundaries for a regional OATT rate cap. Shell Energy asserts that identifying the region in which an ancillary service can be physically traded can be difficult and recommends that the Commission, rather than sellers, identify the relevant trading regions and post that information on the Commission's Web site.
93. The Commission will not adopt the NOPR proposal that would allow sellers to propose a price cap equal to the highest OATT rate within a specified region. Based on the comments received, the Commission concludes that use of a regional OATT rate cap would be inadequate to ensure that third-party sellers' rates remain just and reasonable. In the NOPR, the Commission suggested that this mitigation proposal might be justified on a cost basis in that the highest regional rate may be a reasonable approximation of the cost of new entry into the region in question.
94. We also share commenters' concerns associated with defining appropriate regions for purposes of setting regional price caps. The Commission is concerned that sellers would have an incentive to “gerrymander” or “cherry-pick” regional definitions to ensure inclusion of a high-cost ancillary service provider. In light of the other actions taken in this Final Rule, the Commission believes it would not be productive to undertake the analyses necessary to establish seller-specific regions for various ancillary services.
95. The NOPR proposed to allow applicants to engage in sales to a public utility that is purchasing ancillary services to satisfy its OATT requirements to offer ancillary services to its own customers where the sale is made pursuant to a competitive solicitation that meets the following guidelines: (1) Transparency—the competitive solicitation process should be open and fair; (2) definition—the product or products sought through the competitive solicitation should be precisely defined; (3) evaluation—evaluation criteria should be standardized and applied equally to all bids and bidders; (4) oversight—an independent third-party should design the solicitation, administer bidding, and evaluate bids prior to the company's selection;
96. Commenters generally support the proposal to permit competitive solicitations as an alternative to performing a market power study.
97. Some commenters object to certain aspects of the Commission's proposal. Most criticism is directed at the proposed requirement for independent third-party oversight of competitive solicitations. WSPP, for example, expresses support for competitive solicitations as a means of mitigating potential market power concerns but opposes the proposed oversight by an independent third party. WSPP argues that such oversight is unnecessary, and that the required filing
98. However, Morgan Stanley contends that it is not clear that the Commission's competitive solicitation proposal would protect against market power. Morgan Stanley contends that a competitive solicitation only demonstrates lack of market power if it is robust enough to attract offers that, in aggregate, are significantly in excess of the quantity sought. Morgan Stanley states that it is not clear how a competitive solicitation could help buyers looking to purchase such services on a short-term basis, although it might for the long-term provision of ancillary services.
99. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to allow applicants to engage in market-based sales of ancillary services to a public utility that is purchasing ancillary services to satisfy its OATT requirements where the sale is made pursuant to a competitive solicitation that meets the requirements specified in the NOPR as numerated above, except as modified below. The Commission has relied on the use of competitive solicitations to mitigate affiliate abuse concerns when affiliates seek to enter into transactions pursuant to market-based rate authority.
100. As proposed, the independent third-party review requirement would apply to all competitive solicitations. However, the record does not support imposing a requirement for independent third-party review when none of the parties participating in a competitive solicitation is affiliated with the buying public utility transmission provider. If no affiliate of the buyer participates in the solicitation, there is no concern regarding preferential treatment and, therefore, no need for review by an independent third party. As commenters suggest, requiring an independent third-party reviewer could discourage the use of competitive solicitations as it would add to the cost and time needed to procure ancillary services. Some public utility buyers may have a short-term, unexpected need for ancillary services and therefore need to act quickly to fill this need. In such cases, the buyer itself will have to conduct the solicitation, with very limited time for independent review. The Commission therefore revises the NOPR proposal to require independent third-party review of competitive solicitations only when the buyer solicits offers from one or more of its affiliates.
101. However, the Commission emphasizes that any buyer seeking to procure ancillary services from unaffiliated sellers through a competitive solicitation will need to demonstrate compliance with the four other requirements: transparency, definition, evaluation, and competitiveness. In this regard, we reject Morgan Stanley's assertion that the competitiveness requirement can only be met where a solicitation attracts offers that, in aggregate, are significantly in excess of the quantity sought. We believe there may be multiple methods of demonstrating adequate competitiveness, and we will review such proposals on a case-by-case basis. This will help ensure that any ancillary services procured in this manner are purchased at a competitive market price. At the same time, these requirements will not hinder buyers' flexibility to design solicitations to meet their specific needs. This demonstration must be made through a filing under section 205 of the Federal Power Act, submitted by the seller to the Commission prior to commencement of service under the third-party ancillary service sales agreement that results from the competitive solicitation. To be specific, the third-party seller will need to submit both the actual sales agreement and a narrative description of how the buyer's competitive solicitation meets the requirements of this Final Rule. This narrative description will help demonstrate that exercise of market power was not a factor in the negotiation of the sales agreement, and therefore that the resulting rate is just and reasonable.
102. The Commission proposed in the NOPR to require that each public utility transmission provider submit provisions for inclusion in its OATT that take into account the speed and accuracy of regulation resources in determining its Regulation and Frequency Response reserve requirements. Among other things, this would allow customers choosing to self-supply this service with faster responding or more accurate resources to self-supply with a lower volume of regulation capacity, or vice versa. The Commission stated that it expects to evaluate each proposed determination of regulation reserve requirements on a case-by-case basis. It also stated that each description of how the public utility will adjust its regulation capacity requirement must provide enough detail that an entity wishing to self-supply may compare the resources it is considering using with the resources that the public utility is using. The Commission sought comment on how speed and accuracy should be taken into account.
103. A majority of commenters
104. Hydro Association supports the idea of “pay for performance” standards that recognize the difference between accurate fast-responding resources versus resources that ramp more slowly and respond less nimbly, and agrees with the Commission that a case-by-case evaluation of each proposed determination is more appropriate than imposing a mandatory methodology. Similarly, California PUC states that transparency should act as a deterrent against discrimination, but cautions that the Commission should avoid an overly prescriptive methodology that may dictate the amount of regulation resources that are needed.
105. Several other commenters, including Beacon, ESA, California Storage Alliance, and Morgan Stanley, encourage the Commission to require transmission providers to provide an explanation of how they set their regulation reserve requirements. ESA, Beacon, and California Storage Alliance propose five elements of an explanation that each transmission provider should be required to provide about how it sets its regulation reserve requirement,
106. ESA, Beacon, Public Interest Organizations, California Storage Alliance, and AWEA advocate extending the requirement of accounting for speed and accuracy in regulation service to public utilities meeting their own needs, including via third-party suppliers, not simply to transmission customers choosing to self-supply.
107. Parties that support extending the proposal to public utility transmission providers meeting their own needs also recommend that the Commission consider performance-based rate treatment for public utility investments and contracts with third-party ancillary service providers that allow the public utility to reduce the total capacity and cost of providing regulation service while maintaining the same level of reliability.
108. TAPS asks the Commission to state explicitly that the NOPR's proposal to account for the speed and accuracy of customer self-supplied regulating resources includes demand resources and to state that such a finding would be consistent with OATT Schedule 3 and Order No. 755.
109. EEI opposes the NOPR proposal. It contends that it is premature to require each transmission provider to include provisions in its OATT explaining how it will determine Regulation and Frequency Response requirements, and requests that the Commission defer this proposal pending experience with secondary frequency control (i.e., regulation) in the ISOs and RTOs following the issuance of Order No. 755.
110. EEI contends that the assumption that faster responding technologies are necessarily more efficient than traditional methods of frequency regulation has not been substantiated. EEI explains that industry is still exploring frequency response, including current and historical primary and secondary control response performance, and that for system reliability it is important to maintain a balanced portfolio of resources including inertial response, governor response, and secondary frequency control (or regulation response). It further explains that, although OATT Schedule 3 groups primary and secondary frequency control into a single service, the nature of these
111. The Commission will adopt the NOPR proposal with modification. Rather than requiring OATT Schedule 3 to include a description of how resource speed and accuracy will be taken into account in determining Regulation and Frequency Response reserve requirements, we will require each public utility transmission provider to add to its OATT Schedule 3 a statement that it will take into account the speed and accuracy of regulation resources in its determination of reserve requirements for Regulation and Frequency Response service, including as it reviews whether a self-supplying customer has made “alternative comparable arrangements” as required by the Schedule. This statement will also acknowledge that, upon request by the self-supplying customer, the public utility transmission provider will share with the customer its reasoning and any related data used to make the determination of whether the customer has made “alternative comparable arrangements.”
112. Under the current
113. While the Commission initially proposed that each public utility transmission provider should amend its OATT to include a description of how regulation reserve requirement determinations would take into account speed and accuracy of resources, we believe the better course of action at this time is to place the obligation on the public utility transmission provider to take into account speed and accuracy without requiring it to develop detailed tariff language describing the specific process to be used. This will provide the public utility transmission provider with flexibility while also providing the customer with information. While a number of commenters suggested elements for what the public utility transmission provider should be required to provide, the clearest proposal in the comments related to this issue request that public utility transmission providers be required to provide current monthly and 12-month rolling average Control Performance Standard 1 (CPS1), Control Performance Standard 2 (CPS2) and Balancing Authority ACE Limit (BAAL) scores for Frequency Regulation.
114. Accordingly, the Commission declines to impose a “one size fits all” approach to calculating regulation reserve requirements, consistent with the comments of Hydro Association and California PUC, and declines to require the inclusion of this process in Schedule 3. Rather, we require that Schedule 3 be amended to include a statement that the public utility transmission provider will take into account the speed and accuracy of regulation resources in determining reserve requirements for Regulation and Frequency Response service, including when reviewing whether a self-supplying customer has made “alternative comparable arrangements.” Self-supplying customers and their public utility transmission providers will then have a basis to study and negotiate appropriate arrangements case-by-case, very similar to how such
115. That said, we agree with the comments of ESA, Beacon, and California Storage Alliance that transmission customers considering whether or not there would be any economic advantage to self-supply of Regulation and Frequency Response service requirements would need to be able to make an “apples-to-apples” comparison of their resources to those of their public utility transmission provider.
116. As noted earlier, the public utility transmission provider's CPS1, CPS2, and BAAL scores might address this need in concept, except that they currently reflect long-term averages that do not match the relevant time frame for Regulation and Frequency Response service. We believe the one-minute and ten-minute average ACE data collected by public utility transmission providers to produce the CPS1, CPS2, and BAAL scores would be more useful for this purpose because it does match the relevant time frame. Accordingly, in order to ensure a level of transparency adequate to support self-supply decision-making by transmission customers, we will require public utility transmission providers to post historical one-minute and ten-minute ACE data on OASIS. For this purpose, we find that historical data for the most recent calendar year, updated once per year, should meet the need. This information is already collected and provided to NERC, through balancing area operators and reliability coordinators, so there should be minimal incremental burden associated with posting it on OASIS.
117. The Commission's standard filing requirements, including opportunity for intervention and comment, address Morgan Stanley's request to establish a process for market participants to challenge and resolve speed and accuracy assumptions. For example, as is the case in interconnection agreement proceedings, the transmission service agreement that reflects an individually negotiated self-supply arrangement for Regulation and Frequency Response service can be filed by the public utility transmission provider unexecuted. This will leave the transmission customer free to protest relevant aspects of the public utility transmission provider's determination of whether the customer has made “alternative comparable arrangements,” including as those arrangements relate to the speed and accuracy of the customer's proposed Regulation resources.
118. With respect to Morgan Stanley's request that public utilities demonstrate equivalent treatment for their own or their affiliate's regulation requirements, we find that the increased transparency required by this Final Rule will accomplish this goal. The requirements adopted above apply to the public utility transmission provider's own regulation resources, in the sense that it must apply the same procedures for determining regulation reserve requirements to itself as it does to self-supplying customers.
119. With respect to the request of TAPS that the Commission state explicitly that the NOPR's proposal to account for the speed and accuracy of customer self-supplied regulating resources includes demand resources, we note that OATT Schedule 3, as amended by Order No. 890 makes clear that Regulation and Frequency Response service may be provided from non-generation resources capable of providing the service. Accordingly, a transmission provider's determination of regulation reserve requirements should take into account the speed and accuracy characteristics of the resources in question, whether they are generation-based or otherwise.
120. Turning to the various requests that the Commission step beyond the NOPR proposals, the Commission declines to require two-part pricing for regulation capacity and performance set forth in Order No. 755. We conclude that the requirements adopted above will allow customers and the Commission to ensure that the speed and accuracy of resources used for regulation reserves are properly taken into account in reserve level determinations within the context of the bilateral markets within which non-RTO/ISO public utility transmission providers operate. The Commission also declines commenter requests to provide incentive rate treatment for purchases of Regulation and Frequency Response service by public utility transmission providers to meet their OATT requirements. Commenters are not clear as to what mechanism they believe the Commission should use to require such treatment, and the Commission sees no reason to implement an incentives program in the context of ancillary services rate design.
121. With respect to EEI's comments regarding differences between primary frequency response and secondary frequency regulation, the Commission acknowledges these distinctions. Improving the transparency regarding the resources used to provide Regulation and Frequency Response service under OATT Schedule 3 does not alter the ability of any balancing authority to maintain adequate reserves to meet reliability requirements. The Commission thus sees no need to wait for the industry to better understand the relationship and interdependencies between primary and secondary frequency response prior to adopting the requirements of this final rule. The Commission will evaluate a public utility transmission provider's compliance proposal as part of the case-by-case review discussed above, which will provide the public utility transmission provider the opportunity to demonstrate how it establishes its regulation reserve requirements.
122. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise certain accounting and reporting requirements under its USofA and its forms, statements, and reports contained in Form Nos. 1, 1–F, and 3–Q. The Commission stated that the revisions were needed so that entities subject to the Commission's accounting and reporting requirements could better account for and report transactions associated with energy storage devices used in public utility operations. Moreover, the Commission noted that this information is important in developing and monitoring rates, making policy decisions, compliance and enforcement initiatives, and informing the Commission and the public about the activities of entities subject to the accounting and reporting requirements.
123. The Commission proposed that new electric plant and associated O&M expense accounts be created to provide for the recording of investment and O&M costs of energy storage assets. The Commission also proposed to create a new purchased power account to provide for recording the cost of power purchased for use in storage operations. In addition, the Commission proposed that new Form Nos. 1 and 1–F schedules be created and existing schedules in the forms and Form No. 3–
124. While most commenters support the Commission's proposal to revise the accounting and reporting requirements, there were several recommendations to make adjustments to the proposals and also requests for clarification of certain proposals. Only Solar Energy Association opposed the proposal, stating, without elaboration, that it believes it is premature to establish reporting requirements for energy storage.
125. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that the existing primary plant accounts do not explicitly provide for recording the cost of energy storage assets. The Commission concluded that this could lead to inconsistent accounting and reporting for these assets by utilities subject to the accounting and reporting requirements, making it difficult for the Commission and others to determine costs related to energy storage assets for cost-of-service rate purposes. The Commission also noted that the lack of transparency affects interested parties', including the Commission's, ability to monitor these utilities' operations to prevent and discourage cross-subsidization between cost-based and market-based activities. To address these issues, the Commission proposed to create electric plant accounts in the existing functional classifications—production, transmission, and distribution—for new energy storage assets.
126. The Commission proposed that the installed costs of energy storage assets be recorded in the accounts based on the function or purpose the asset serves. On this basis, an asset that performs a single function will have its cost recorded in a single plant account. In instances where an energy storage asset is used to perform more than one function or purpose, the Commission proposed that the cost of the asset be allocated among the relevant energy storage plant accounts based on the functions performed by the asset and the allocation of the asset's costs through cost-based rates that are approved by a relevant regulatory agency, whether federal or state.
127. In general, the commenters applaud the Commission's efforts to improve transparency and prevent double-recovery of energy storage-related costs. The proposal to require utilities to record the costs of single-function energy storage assets in a single plant account garnered widespread support. However, the proposal to require utilities to allocate the costs of multi-function energy storage assets to the relevant energy storage plant accounts based on the functions performed and approved rate recovery, received comments supporting and opposing the proposal. Commenters that agree with the proposal generally indicate that the accounting would provide necessary transparency of a utility's operations,
128. Public Interest Organizations state that they support the development of requirements that can reveal the activities and costs of energy storage operations thorough greater transparency and detail. California PUC similarly states that in the event an energy storage developer intends to use a facility to perform multiple functions, the proposed accounting and reporting should provide transparency. NU Companies state that they support flexible rate treatment for energy storage assets and believe the proposed accounting will provide transparency required to guard against inappropriate cross subsidization of various services and double recovery cost.
129. In opposition to the proposal, SDG&E contends that while it generally agrees with the Commission's allocation “concept” to account for energy storage assets by functional category, i.e., production, transmission, and distribution, it is concerned that generally applicable financial tools may not be able to efficiently track or monitor up to three functional categories for one asset without increased and ongoing manual intervention.
130. Similar to SDG&E, Southern California Edison and EEI also complain of an increased administrative burden resulting from allocating an energy
131. EEI indicates that while it generally opposes the NOPR's proposed accounting, it believes that in some circumstances the proposal may be a practical alternative for companies desiring to use it.
132. Southern California Edison supports EEI's option (2). Southern California Edison and EEI contend that the option (2) approach is consistent with the approach used for certain assets that provide both state-jurisdictional and FERC-jurisdictional functions.
133. SDG&E's, Southern California Edison's, and EEI's arguments that requiring utilities to allocate the costs of energy storage assets that perform multiple functions across the relevant energy storage plant accounts places an undue administrative burden on utilities are unpersuasive. These commenters generally argue that this perceived undue administrative burden results from a requirement that utilities maintain records that track the usage of energy storage assets and costs associated with such use. However, utilities would be required to maintain records with this information whether accounting for the costs of an asset in multiple accounts as proposed in the NOPR or accounting for the costs in a single account as proposed by SDG&E, Southern California Edison and EEI. For example, information on the allocation of the cost of an energy storage asset to a particular function will have to be maintained by utilities operating multi-function, multi-cost recovery energy storage assets, regardless of whether the information is required to be reported in the reporting forms as proposed in the NOPR or if the information is not reported in the forms yet is used in ratemaking determinations as proposed by SDG&E, EEI, and Southern California Edison. Because utilities with energy storage operations that recover any portion of costs on a cost-of-service basis will be required to maintain use and cost allocation information on the assets, requiring these utilities to implement the NOPR's accounting proposal does not result in an additional burden on utilities that could be considered unduly burdensome.
134. Moreover, SDG&E's argument that costs could possibly be stranded if a utility does not appropriately account for energy storage operations is also unconvincing. This possibility exists throughout the utility industry and is not uniquely attributable to utilities with energy storage operations. Administrative errors, such as errors in accounting, that lead to costs being stranded due to inadequate or insufficient internal controls over policies, practices, and procedures used to track costs associated with assets represent a risk for all utilities whether or not the utilities own energy storage assets. Risks of this nature are inherent to all utilities' operations. Utilities must maintain adequate, sufficient, and reliable internal controls to reduce the probability of this risk affecting operations.
135. As support for their argument that the NOPR's proposed accounting causes an undue administrative burden and that their advocated accounting avoids the burden, Southern California Edison and EEI contend that their proposal to record the costs of an energy storage asset in a single plant account could require utilities to implement a formula or special study to appropriately allocate the costs of the asset across multiple functions. However, this contention does not support their argument. A formula or special study would require utilities to maintain the same information on the functions performed by an energy storage asset and costs associated with such performance, as would be required by the NOPR's proposed accounting. Thus, a formula or special study would not avoid the administrative burden associated with accounting for energy storage assets and operations. Furthermore, Southern California Edison and EEI have not provided information to support a determination that the burden would be decreased by implementing their proposed accounting. Their proposal would result in less transparent reporting of information on energy storage operations as compared to the NOPR's proposed accounting.
136. While the commenters argue that the accounting proposal might require increased manual intervention to account for and report storage assets, it is not clear that such intervention, if any, results in an undue administrative burden. As the Commission observed in the NOPR, uniform, transparent, and consistent reporting of information on energy storage operations by utilities is essential, especially by those seeking to recover costs of energy storage services in cost-based rates.
137. EEI's recommendation that utilities be afforded two options to account for and report storage assets that provide multiple services and recover associated costs simultaneously under cost-based and market-based rate methods is not consistent with the intent of the NOPR's proposed accounting and reporting revisions. The NOPR proposed one method to account for energy storage assets performing multiple functions under multiple cost recovery mechanisms to ensure that utilities account for the assets on a uniform and consistent basis. EEI's proposal for two methods of accounting could result in similarly-situated utilities with energy storage assets reporting the same type of transaction differently. This would not provide the uniformity sought by the accounting and reporting proposals and could disrupt consistency, which would make it difficult to compare utilities with energy storage operations across the industry. In addition, adopting EEI's proposal to record the costs of the assets in a single account would reduce the transparency of information reported in the forms. This information is critical to the clarity and transparency needed to support a reasonable analysis of a utility's cost. Consequently, we will not adopt EEI's proposal.
138. Southern California Edison's assertion that the NOPR requirement adopted here is not consistent with Definition No. 8, Continuing Plant Inventory Record, is incorrect.
139. Further, Southern California Edison's and EEI's contentions that there is no precedent for creating multiple property records for a single or partial asset misconstrues the proposed accounting and reporting requirements. The accounting and reporting proposals we adopt here do not require utilities to maintain multiple records for a single or partial asset as Southern California Edison and EEI contend. Rather, the reforms maintain the existing requirement of Definition No. 8 that utilities maintain descriptive operational and cost information on each asset. Moreover, we do not consider allocating the cost of a single asset to multiple property accounts to be the same as creating multiple property records as though there were multiple assets. A utility can maintain information on a single energy storage asset with costs allocated to multiple plant accounts in a single record that provides descriptive operational and cost information on the asset. Additionally, in accordance with General Instruction No. 12, Records for Each Plant, utilities are required to maintain a record, by electric plant accounts, on the book costs of each plant owned.
140. EEI argues that if different depreciation rates are applied to a single energy storage asset in accordance with each function the asset performs the various allocated costs of the asset would be depreciated over multiple periods. EEI is correct that there is a possibility of this occurring if costs of a single asset were subjected to multiple differing depreciation rates. However, this has neither been the experience of this Commission nor do we expect that a utility's primary rate regulator would subject a single asset to multiple depreciation rates. Although the costs of an energy storage asset may be allocated across multiple plant accounts, we agree with EEI that the asset is a single unique asset with a single economic life. Thus, there should be a single depreciation rate applied to the asset that allocates in a systematic and rational manner the service value of the asset over its service life. To the extent possible, a utility should apply a single depreciation rate to an energy storage asset.
141. The reforms adopted here are designed to provide needed transparency, but also to reflect a fair balance between the need for information and the additional burden on the utility. We believe these accounting reforms for energy storage reflect this balance. Accordingly, Account 348, Energy Storage Equipment—Production, Account 351, Energy Storage Equipment—Transmission, and Account 363, Energy Storage Equipment—Distribution, as proposed in the NOPR are adopted in this Final Rule.
142. In the NOPR, the Commission noted that to provide some electrical services, energy storage devices may need to maintain a particular state of charge, or as in the case of compressed air facilities, may need to maintain some minimum pressure, and that some companies may be required to purchase power to maintain a desired state of charge or pressure. Further, the Commission determined that the benefits of enhanced transparency, in this instance, resulting from having the cost of power purchased for energy storage operations reported separately from other power purchases, outweighs the associated burden of requiring the accounting. Therefore, the Commission proposed a new Account 555.1, Power Purchased for Storage Operations, to report the cost of: (1) Power purchased and stored for resale; (2) power purchased that will not be resold but instead consumed in operations during the provisioning of services; (3) power purchased to sustain a state of charge; and (4) power purchased to initially attain a state of charge, with item 4 being capitalized as a component cost of initially constructing the asset.
143. Most commenters support the proposed accounting. For example, ESA and others state that the new account will enhance the transparency of reporting the operations of storage resources.
144. Hydro Association states, in particular, for closed-loop pumped storage projects, the first unit testing entails pumping or charging the upper reservoir. Hydro Association explains that at an early stage of development of a pumped storage project, the generating station is months away from being declared “commercial” and testing the station requires energy from the grid to initially attain a fully charged state (i.e., a full upper reservoir). Hydro Association argues that these initial
145. We will adopt the new Account 555.1, Power Purchased for Storage Operations, as proposed in the NOPR. The accounting reforms here requiring initial charging and testing costs to be capitalized seek to apply existing requirements for conventional electric plant, such as pumped storage plant, to new energy storage assets. The requirements do not seek to differentiate the accounting for new energy storage assets from pumped storage plant in this instance.
146. We disagree with Hydro Association's assertion that the existing accounting requirements for pumped storage operations are not sufficient. Contrary to Hydro Association's assertion, pumped storage is not prohibited, for accounting purposes, by the existing accounting rules and regulations from capitalizing costs incurred to initially bring a pumped storage facility into operation nor is it prohibited from capitalizing costs incurred to test pump storage facilities prior to commercial operation. Electric Plant Instruction No. 3, Components of Construction Cost, provides that expenses incidental to the construction of plant such as cost to initially attain a fully charged state to bring the plant into operation may be capitalized as a component cost of the plant.
147. In the NOPR, the Commission observed that there are O&M expenses related to the use of energy storage assets to provide utility services, and there are no existing O&M expense accounts in the USofA specifically dedicated to accounting for the cost of energy storage operations. Therefore, the Commission proposed new O&M expense accounts for energy storage-related O&M expenses that are not specifically provided for in the existing O&M expense accounts in the USofA and revision of certain existing O&M expense accounts. Specifically, the Commission proposed that energy storage expenses be recorded in Account 548.1, Operation of Energy Storage Equipment, and Account 553.1, Maintenance of Energy Storage Equipment, for energy storage plant classified as production; Account 562.1, Operation of Energy Storage Equipment, and Account 570.1, Maintenance of Energy Storage Equipment, for energy storage plant classified as transmission; and Account 582.1, Operation of Energy Storage Equipment, and Account 592.2, Maintenance of Energy Storage Equipment, for energy storage plant classified as distribution, to the extent that the existing O&M expense accounts do not adequately support recording of the cost.
148. The commenters support the proposed O&M expense accounts. Most commenters state that the proposed accounts will provide sufficient transparency of energy storage-specific O&M expenses.
149. This Final Rule adopts the NOPR proposals for the O&M expense accounts with the exception that the account number for Account 582.1 will be changed to Account 584.1. The name and text of the account will remain as proposed in the NOPR.
150. In addition, the NOPR proposed that the text of Account 592, Maintenance of Station Equipment (Major only), and Account 592.1, Maintenance of Structures and Equipment (Nonmajor only), be revised such that the accounts do not provide for O&M expenses related to energy storage operations and also to remove the reference to Account 363. Accordingly, the following text is struck from Accounts 592 and 592.1:
151. In the NOPR, the Commission acknowledged that the existing schedules in the Form Nos. 1, 1–F, and 3–Q do not provide for reporting information on new types of energy storage assets such as batteries and flywheels.
152. Most commenters support the NOPR's forms proposals, and a few commenters recommend revisions to the forms in addition to those proposed.
153. Hydro Association contends that there are shortcomings in the way the Form No. 1 treats existing pumped storage plants, as they are now used, and it suggests modifications that it believes will improve reporting of information on the assets. Hydro Association recommends that the heading of Line 6 “Plant Hours Connect to Load While Generating” of schedule pages 408–409, Pumped Storage Generating Plant Statistics (Large Plants), in the Form No. 1 be changed to read “Plant Hours Connect to Load.”
154. Further, Hydro Association also contends that Line 38, “Expenses for KWh (line 37/9)” incorrectly calculates the cost per kilowatt hour (KWh) of pumped storage operations.
155. TAPS recommends revisions to new schedule pages 414–416, Energy Storage Operations (Large Plants).
156. In regard to the 10,000 KW threshold, California Storage Alliance states that it believes 10,000 KW is an appropriate threshold for requiring a difference in the reporting requirements for the assets.
157. We generally agree with the premise of Hydro Association's contention that Line 6 of schedule pages 408–409 could benefit from additional detail. However, the cost of additional detail must be weighed against any associated benefit that could result. To this end, we strive to achieve a balance such that the cost of implementing new reporting requirements does not excessively exceed the benefits of implementation. A particularly important benefit to the Commission of additional detail is that it provides data necessary for the regulation and review of companies' operations. Hydro Association has neither explained how information on pumping and condensing hours is needed for the regulation and review of pumped storage operations nor has it explained how the information would be beneficial for other uses. Hydro Association indicates that this information will provide for a measure of a facility's effectiveness, however, it is not clear that the cost of requiring this information is on par with any perceived benefits or that the requirement would not be overly burdensome. Consequently, we will not adopt Hydro Association's proposal to include the sum of generating, condensing and pumping on Line 6, nor will we adopt its alternate proposal to add two new line items to the schedule.
158. With regard to Hydro Association's contention that Line 38 of schedule pages 408–409 incorrectly calculates the cost per KWh of pumped storage operations, this line is not intended to report this cost, rather it is intended to report the cost per KWh of energy generated and transmitted to the grid. Line 38 of the schedule includes a formula that requires filers to divide total production expenses reported on Line 37 by energy generated and transmitted to the grid reported on Line 9. Nevertheless, we recognize Hydro Association's underlying concern that, as a conforming change given the other accounting requirements in this Final Rule, the schedule should report this information, including the energy generated and energy used in pumping, as illustrated in the formula example submitted by Hydro Association—Line 37/9+10.
159. We agree that reporting this information on schedule pages 408–409 will help create a more accurate database for benchmarking and O&M cost studies, and this information also will assist interested parties', including the Commission's, review of the operations of pumped storage facilities across the industry. We note that the data inputs needed to perform the calculation are currently required to be reported on Lines 9, 10 and 37 of schedule pages 408–409, so this requirement is not wholly new and the burden on utilities to calculate and report the information specifically on schedule pages 408–409 is minimal. Accordingly, the item on Line 38 of schedule pages 408–409 is revised to read “Expenses per KWh of Generation (line 37/line 9)” and a new Line 39 is added which reads “Expenses per KWh of Generation and Pumping (line 37/(line 9 + line 10)).”
160. TAPS asserts that revenues from energy storage operations can originate from activities other than energy sales, thus it recommends that proposed schedule pages 414–416 be revised to provide for other types of revenues. We agree that there are potentially other activities that energy storage operators can engage in to generate revenue. For example, as TAPS noted, an energy storage operator can conceivably earn revenues from the sale of storage capacity. While we are not aware of any instances where these types of storage capacity transactions have occurred, to ensure that the schedule provides
161. Beacon and ESA recommend that the Commission align the threshold for detailed reporting in the new schedules with the existing 20,000 KW threshold established in Order No. 2006 for the interconnection of small generators.
162. Beacon and ESA have not provided information that supports a decreased reporting burden for energy storage assets over 10,000 KW as compared to the reporting burden of conventional assets that are currently subject to the 10,000 KW threshold. Nor has Beacon or ESA provided information that would support increasing the existing 10,000 KW threshold for conventional assets to maintain parity between those assets and energy storage assets. Their proposal may result in an unduly discriminatory reporting requirement for energy storage assets compared to conventional assets, therefore we will not adopt the recommended 20,000 KW reporting threshold.
163. We will adopt the NOPR's proposed 10,000 KW threshold as this amount is neither unduly conservative nor is it overly burdensome. As we indicated in the NOPR, information that would be reported for energy storage assets and operations differs little from other data public utilities maintain under the USofA.
164. Finally, we will amend schedule pages 2–4, 204–207, 320–323, 324a–324b, 326–327, 397, and 401a of the Form Nos. 1, 1–F, and 3–Q as proposed in the NOPR.
165. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that public utilities currently providing jurisdictional services and recovering costs of the services under market-based rates that have been granted waiver of the accounting and reporting requirements and that seek recovery of a portion of service costs under cost-based rates, be required to forego the previously issued waivers and account for and report all cost and operational information to the Commission in accordance with its accounting and reporting requirements.
166. Most commenters agree with the proposal to rescind previously issued waivers and many of these commenters argue that there should not be a percentage threshold that triggers the requirement. California Storage Alliance states that rescinding the waivers will enhance transparency and facilitate development and monitoring of the cost-based portion of rates.
167. We will adopt the NOPR proposal requiring public utilities to forego previously issued accounting and reporting waivers in instances where the utility seeks to recover costs associated with operation of an energy storage asset simultaneously under market-based and
168. Regarding the comments of California Storage Alliance, ESA, and Beacon, the Commission clarifies that sellers under a competitive solicitation that meets the requirements of this Final Rule
169. Their comments seem to indicate a belief that there are some products that are inherently cost-based and others that are inherently market-based, and that if a competitive solicitation were held for a cost-based product, the resulting rates would still be cost-based. We are not persuaded by these commenters' arguments that products should be classified as inherently cost-based or market-based. Some potential sellers of these products will qualify to sell them at market-based rates because they either lack market power in the relevant product market, or it has been adequately mitigated. Other sellers who do not qualify to make market-based sales, because they either have market power or cannot prove they lack it, will be limited to charging cost-based rates.
170. Under the competitive solicitation proposal at bar, proof that the competitive solicitation meets the requirements of this Final Rule will demonstrate that a seller qualifies to make market-based sales at the rates resulting from the solicitation, and thus can avoid having to justify those rates on a cost-of-service basis. Because such sellers will still only be making market-based sales, there is no reason to rescind the prior accounting and reporting waivers that were granted because they would only be making market-based rate sales. Cost-based sales of ancillary services have always been an option for third party sellers, and remain an option for them after issuance of this Final Rule. However, all of the requirements of cost-of-service regulation, such as the very accounting and reporting requirements at issue here, would apply to such sales. We also clarify that the requirement for a company to forego previously issued accounting and reporting waivers, in this instance, is only applicable when energy storage is involved. There may be other occasions when previously issued waivers may be rescinded however those occasions are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
171. EEI asks that the Commission clarify the definition of energy storage assets or technologies that are subject to these accounting and reporting requirements.
Account 346, Miscellaneous Power Plant Equipment
172. We agree with EEI that there are certain assets that are excluded from the scope of this Final Rule, however, we will not adopt EEI's proposed definition for an energy storage asset or technology. The definition is too broad and could be interpreted to include storage-type technologies that are outside the scope of this Final Rule. As EEI indicated, the assets listed above are the type of assets that should be excluded. This list is not exhaustive; rather it is an example of the type of assets and activities served by those assets that are a baseline indicator of assets that are outside the scope of the accounting and reporting requirements adopted in this Final Rule. For the purposes of this Final Rule, an energy storage asset shall be defined as property that is interconnected to the electrical grid and is designed to receive electrical energy, to store such electrical energy as another energy form,
173. EEI requests that the Commission pre-authorize inclusion of the new energy storage plant and O&M expense accounts in existing formula rates without the need for separate, company-specific section 205 proceedings.
174. We agree with EEI that utilities currently owning and operating these assets are using existing accounts and reporting schedules. Moreover, in many instances these accounts are incorporated in the companies' formula rate templates and costs reported in the accounts are through operation of the formula rate included in rate
175. For example, in instances where a company intends on recording the costs of an energy storage asset to multiple plant accounts in accordance with a plan to support multiple functions using the asset, a compliance filing may not provide for an adequate review of the many variables involved that can impact the determination of the appropriate allocation of the cost and rates charged based on the allocation. Moreover, if a company intends on recovering capital and O&M costs of the asset simultaneously under cost-based and market-based rate recovery mechanisms, a compliance filing would not provide sufficient notice or review of the cost to be recovered under the two rate mechanisms. Consequently, because a compliance filing is not appropriate for all situations, we will limit approval of its use to companies that are transferring amounts from an existing plant account under a particular functional classification to a new energy storage plant account under the same functional classification. Transfers of the costs to other plant accounts after this initial compliance filing shall be subject to the requirements of Electric Plant Instruction No.12, Transfers of Property,
176. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that the cost of energy storage assets be charged to depreciation expense using the depreciation rates developed for each function.
177. Commenters generally support this proposal. For example, Beacon and ESA acknowledge support for the proposal.
178. For accounting purposes, utilities are required to use percentage rates of depreciation that are based on a method of depreciation that allocates in a systematic and rational manner the service value of depreciable property over the service life of the property.
179. The California PUC warns that the Commission's authority over the accounting and reporting for energy storage assets should not limit or infringe upon States' jurisdictional authority over the assets as the majority of the assets are likely to be financed pursuant to state jurisdictional procurement authority.
180. The accounting and reporting requirements of this rulemaking are not intended to limit or infringe upon States' jurisdictional authority. Pursuant to section 301(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission has authority to prescribe a system of accounts and rules and regulations that are applicable in principle to all licensees and public utilities subject to the Commission's accounting and reporting requirements.
181. EEI requests clarification of the implementation date of the proposed accounting and reporting requirements. EEI states that it believes assets and related amounts recorded in other accounts under the existing accounting requirements should be reclassified to the new energy storage accounts provided the asset meets the definition of an energy storage asset.
182. While we agree with EEI that it may not be cost effective to require utilities with energy storage assets to retroactively amend prior year reports to implement the accounting and reporting requirements of this Final Rule; we disagree with EEI's contention that it would not be beneficial to interested parties desiring more transparent reporting of the costs associated with energy storage operations. In these instances, the Commission must weigh the perceived cost of implementing a requirement against the expected benefits of implementation. Although requiring utilities with energy storage assets to retroactively implement the requirements would provide a more transparent historical record of these utilities energy storage operations, this information would not be necessary to provide oversight of these utilities energy storage operations going forward. Moreover, it is not clear that the benefits of retroactive implementation are sufficient to justify the cost. Consequently, we will not require utilities to retroactively implement the accounting and reporting requirements.
183. Utilities subject to the Commission's accounting and reporting requirements must implement the requirements as of January 1, 2013. Utilities are not required to adjust prior year, comparative information reported in 2013 Form Nos. 1 and 1–F that must be filed by April 18, 2014, nor are they required to adjust prior year, comparative information reported in 2013 Form No. 3–Q reports. However, a footnote disclosure must be provided describing any amounts transferred from an existing account to a new energy storage account.
184. Due to outdated software, discussed in more detail below, the adopted new and revised schedules of Form Nos. 1, 1–F and 3–Q will not be available for use as of the effective date of this Final Rule. Consequently, utilities with energy storage assets and those that acquire the assets at a later date must continue or begin, as appropriate, using the existing form schedules to report energy storage assets pending availability of the new and revised schedules. Furthermore, we direct the Chief Accountant to issue interim accounting and reporting guidance for utilities to report to the Commission the costs of energy storage operations contemplated in this Final Rule until the new and revised schedules are available.
185. Regarding the reporting software issues, the Commission's forms software applications are built with Visual FoxPro development tools and must be installed on a Windows-based computer. Microsoft, the Visual FoxPro vendor, announced in 2007 that it would no longer sell or issue new versions of Visual FoxPro and would provide support for it only through 2015. Also, over time, the Commission has found that it is difficult to update tables in the software to accommodate revisions to existing schedules and add new schedules to the forms because Visual FoxPro does not allow data tables to exceed two gigabytes. These data size limitations will soon restrict the Commission's ability to add data fields in the forms. These limitations make the forms software application outmoded, ineffective, and unsustainable.
186. Pursuant to Sections 141.1, 141.400, and 385.2011 of the Commission's Regulations,
187. Some commenters raised issues beyond the scope of the NOPR. WSPP argues that public utility participation in a competitive market for ancillary services is hindered by certain OATT requirements applicable to network transmission customers. Specifically, WSPP refers to the requirement that network resources be undesignated as such, and thus lose their firm network transmission service, when they are committed to third-party sales instead of network load obligations. WSPP points to timing mismatches between the operational needs of ancillary service use and the undesignation requirements of the OATT as the main source of this issue. It argues that the Commission previously acknowledged these issues in connection with contingency reserves under the Southwest Reserve Sharing Group.
188. EEI makes similar arguments with respect to the network resource undesignation requirements, and asks that the Commission remain receptive to utility-specific requests for flexibility.
189. Hydro Association and Public Interest Organizations argue that the Commission should develop policies that facilitate long-term contracts with energy storage owners. Hydro Association asserts that the Commission should solicit further input on policies that would allow RTO, ISO, and stand-alone transmission providers to enter into long-term contracts with energy storage owners.
190. Shell Energy suggests that the current distinction between Energy Imbalance and Generator Imbalance is unnecessary, and that the two services should be combined into a single product. Shell Energy cites similar definitions in the EQR Data Dictionary, and states that treating the two services as different products provides little benefit, creates unnecessary complexity and may result in confusion and regulatory uncertainty.
191. Shell Energy also urges the Commission to recognize “Balancing Reserves” as a separate energy and capacity product used to firm variable energy resources. Shell Energy argues that such a product would be differentiated from ancillary services because, unlike ancillary services, it would not be limited to addressing
192. AWEA requests that the Commission explore the role that dynamic transfer capability, or lack thereof, plays in protecting against exertion of market power. AWEA argues that lack of dynamic transfer capability severely constrains competitive ancillary service markets in many parts of the country. AWEA suggests that the Commission could require transmission providers to analyze, inventory, and market dynamic scheduling capability on a non-discriminatory basis.
193. Powerex argues that there may be certain locations where there is sufficient market liquidity such that a seller should be able to make ancillary service sales without performing a separate market power analysis. Powerex believes that these locations might be defined by some measure of market liquidity, or by a specific minimum number of potential sellers, and gives as examples the trading hubs of Mid-Columbia, California-Oregon Border, Palo Verde, Four Corners, and Mead. Powerex does not suggest specific liquidity metrics, but does have suggestions regarding the appropriate minimum number of potential suppliers. It suggests that third-party sales to a transmission provider could be deemed competitive any time there are: (1) At least three potential suppliers, each capable of providing 100 percent of the buyer's needs for the ancillary service in question; or (2) at least five potential suppliers, each capable of meeting a significant portion (e.g., at least 25 percent) of the buyer's need for the ancillary service in question.
194. With respect to WSPP's request for more flexibility on the requirements for network resource undesignation, the Commission declines to consider such changes on a generic basis at this time. This undesignation requirement is intended to ensure that network transmission customers cannot inappropriately withhold firm transmission capacity from potential competitors. While WSPP is correct that the Commission has permitted limited deviations from this requirement in connection with established reserve sharing groups, we are not persuaded that a more general relaxation is justified. WSPP indicates in its comments that a public utility is unable to undesignate the network resource providing the energy associated with the provision of ancillary services because the unit providing the energy may differ from the unit providing the capacity. This suggests that the public utility will be using transmission service from a unit that is different from the unit for which transmission service has been reserved. Thus, WSPP is essentially asking the Commission to permit a public utility transmission provider to implicitly use firm point-to-point transmission service without reserving it or paying for it. The Commission has previously expressly prohibited this practice and nothing in the comments suggests that the Commission's concerns are no longer valid.
195. With respect to the requests of Hydro Association and Public Interest Organizations to facilitate long-term contracting with energy storage owners, we see no basis for any additional action at this time. In bilateral markets, assuming that parties are able to avoid the
196. Shell Energy's suggestion that Energy Imbalance and Generator Imbalance services be combined into a single product is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, and Shell Energy's arguments in support of this idea do not rise to a level concrete enough to justify such an expansion at this time.
197. With respect to Shell Energy and EPSA's comments regarding recognition of non-contingency-related balancing reserves as separate from ancillary services, and WSPP's similar discussion of “flexible capacity,” we clarify that sales of energy and capacity at market-based rates are permissible, provided the buyer may not use the purchases to meet its OATT obligations to provide Regulation and Frequency Response or Reactive Supply and Voltage Control ancillary services.
198. AWEA's comments regarding dynamic transfer capability raise issues beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which have not been fully explored in this proceeding, and whose resolution is not necessary to the completion of this rulemaking. Accordingly, the Commission will not direct changes with respect to dynamic scheduling or dynamic transfer capability at this time.
199. Regarding Powerex's argument for development of a new market liquidity screen for ancillary service market power, we decline to attempt such development at this time. The record does not currently support either development of a generic market liquidity metric, or the particular minimum participant number thresholds proposed by Powerex. We remain open to a more detailed discussion of these ideas in the future if needed, but at this time will move forward with the rule changes contained elsewhere in this Final Rule, which we hope will reduce the need to develop alternative market power analyses.
201. While the authorization is effective as of the date specified in this Final Rule, sellers should file this tariff revision the next time they make a market-based rate filing with the Commission. To the extent sellers do not currently have this provision in their tariff but wish to make third-party sales of ancillary services, they should include this revised provision in their tariff the next time they make a market-based rate filing with the Commission.
202. With regard to sales of Operating Reserves, as discussed above, both sellers that have a market-based rate tariff on file and applicants seeking new market-based rate authority must satisfactorily make the required showing and receive Commission authorization before making sales of Operating Reserve-Spinning and Operating Reserve-Supplemental to a public utility that is purchasing Operating Reserve-Spinning and Operating Reserve-Supplemental to satisfy its own open access transmission tariff requirements to offer ancillary services to its own customers.
203. With respect to the Final Rule's reforms to provide greater transparency with regard to reserve requirements for Regulation and Frequency Response, within 30 days from the effective date of this Final Rule, we require each public utility transmission provider to revise its OATT Schedule 3 consistent with the revised Schedule 3 in accordance with Appendix B to this Final Rule.
204. With respect to Final Rule's reforms to our accounting and reporting regulations, utilities subject to these requirements must implement the requirements as of January 1, 2013. Utilities are not required to adjust prior year, comparative information reported in 2013 Form Nos. 1 and 1–F that must be filed by April 18, 2014, nor are they required to adjust prior year, comparative information reported in 2013 Form No. 3–Q reports. However, a footnote disclosure must be provided describing any amounts transferred from an existing account to a new energy storage account.
205. Due to outdated software, discussed in more detail in the body of this Final Rule, the adopted new and revised schedules of Form Nos. 1, 1–F and 3–Q will not be available for use as of the effective date of this Final Rule. Consequently, utilities with energy storage assets and those that acquire the assets at a later date must continue or begin, as appropriate, using the existing form schedules to report energy storage assets pending availability of the new and revised schedules.
206. The following collections of information contained in this Final Rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
• Year 1: 4 hrs. (for one-time refiling) + (4 requests * 4 hrs.), giving an estimate of 20 hrs. per utility
• Years 2 and 3, each: 4 requests * 4 hrs., giving 16 hrs. per utility per year. When the one-time implementation burden (of 4 hours) is averaged over Years 1–3, the annual additional burden per utility is 17.33 hours.
In paragraph 96, the Commission is requiring that any third-party seller seeking to sell ancillary services to a public utility transmission provider through a competitive solicitation will need to demonstrate compliance with the competitive solicitation requirements of this rule, through a filing under section 205 of the Federal Power Act. This requirement for submittal in a section 205 filing would be made under FERC–516 (OMB Control No. 1902–0096). The filing would be submitted by the seller to the Commission prior to commencement of service under the third-party ancillary service sales agreement that results from the competitive solicitation. The filing will include both the actual sales agreement and a narrative description of how the buyer's competitive solicitation meets the requirements of this Final Rule. Meeting those requirements demonstrates the justness and reasonableness of the resulting rate. If the seller did not have this option to sell under the competitive solicitation, the seller could not use market-based rates and would have to either submit an application for cost-based rates under FERC–516 or an application seeking waiver of the
These requirements conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection, communication, and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for
Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email:
Comments on the collection of information and the associated burden estimates in the rule should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by email to:
207. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
208. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
209. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
210. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number, excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
211. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
Effective Date and Congressional Notification. These regulations are effective November 27, 2013. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Electric power, Electric utilities, Uniform System of Accounts.
By direction of the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Parts 35 and 101, Chapter I, Title 18,
16 U.S.C. 791a–825r, 2601–2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352.
(c)(1) There will be a rebuttable presumption that a Seller lacks horizontal market power with respect to sales of energy, capacity, energy imbalance, and generator imbalance services if it passes two indicative market power screens: A pivotal supplier analysis based on annual peak demand of the relevant market, and a market share analysis applied on a seasonal basis. There will be a rebuttable presumption that a Seller lacks horizontal market power with respect to sales of operating reserve-spinning and operating reserve-supplemental services if the Seller passes these two indicative market power screens and demonstrates in its market-based rate application how the scheduling practices in its region
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) A Seller that has been found to have market power in generation or ancillary services, or that is presumed to have horizontal market power in generation or ancillary services by virtue of failing or foregoing the relevant market power screens, as described in 35.37(c), may adopt the default mitigation detailed in paragraph (b) of this section for sales of energy or capacity or paragraph (c) of this section for sales of ancillary services or may propose mitigation tailored to its own particular circumstances to eliminate its ability to exercise market power. Mitigation will apply only to the market(s) in which the Seller is found, or presumed, to have market power.
(b) Default mitigation for sales of energy or capacity consists of three distinct products:
(c) Default mitigation for sales of ancillary services consist of: (1) A cap based on the relevant OATT ancillary service rate of the purchasing transmission operator; or (2) the results of a competitive solicitation that meets the Commission's requirements for transparency, definition, evaluation, and competitiveness.
(k)
16 U.S.C. 791a–825r, 2601–2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352, 7651–7651o.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
A. This account shall include the cost installed of energy storage equipment used to store energy for load managing purposes. Where energy storage equipment can perform more than one function or purposes, the cost of the equipment shall be allocated among production, transmission, and distribution plant based on the services provided by the asset and the allocation of the asset's cost through rates approved by a relevant regulatory agency. Reallocation of the cost of equipment recorded in this account shall be in accordance with Electric Plant Instruction No. 12, Transfers of Property.
B. Labor costs and power purchased to energize the equipment are includible on the first installation only. The cost of removing, relocating and resetting energy storage equipment shall not be charged to this account but to Account 562.1, Operation of Energy Storage Equipment, and Account, 570.1, Maintenance of Energy Storage Equipment, as appropriate.
C. The records supporting this account shall show, by months, the function(s) each energy storage asset supports or performs.
363 Energy Storage Equipment—Distribution
A. This account shall include the cost installed of energy storage equipment used to store energy for load managing purposes. Where energy storage equipment can perform more than one function or purpose, the cost of the equipment shall be allocated among production, transmission, and distribution plant based on the services provided by the asset and the allocation of the asset's cost through rates approved by a relevant regulatory agency. Reallocation of the cost of equipment recorded in this account shall be in accordance with Electric Plant Instruction No. 12, Transfers of Property.
B. Labor costs and power purchased to energize the equipment are includible
C. The records supporting this account shall show, by months, the function(s) each energy storage asset supports or performs.
A. This account shall include the cost installed of energy storage equipment used to store energy for load managing purposes. Where energy storage equipment can perform more than one function or purpose, the cost of the equipment shall be allocated among production, transmission, and distribution plant based on the services provided by the asset and the allocation of the asset's cost through rates approved by a relevant regulatory agency. Reallocation of the cost of equipment recorded in this account shall be in accordance with Electric Plant Instruction No. 12, Transfers of Property.
B. Labor costs and power purchased to energize the equipment are includible on the first installation only. The cost of removing, relocating and resetting energy storage equipment shall not be charged to this account but to accounts Account 548.1, Operation of Energy Storage Equipment, and Account 553.1, Maintenance of Energy Storage Equipment., as appropriate.
C. The records supporting this account shall show, by months, the function(s) each energy storage asset supports or performs.
Note: The cost of pumped storage hydroelectric plant shall be charged to hydraulic production plant. These are examples of items includible in this account. This list is not exhaustive.
This account shall include the cost of labor, materials used and expenses incurred in the operation of energy storage equipment includible in Account 348, Energy Storage Equipment—Production, which are not specifically provided for or are readily assignable to other production operation expense accounts.
This account shall include the cost of labor, materials used and expenses incurred in the maintenance of energy storage equipment includible in Account 348, Energy Storage Equipment—Production, which are not specifically provided for or are readily assignable to other production maintenance expense accounts.
A. This account shall include the cost at point of receipt by the utility of electricity purchased for use in storage operations, including power purchased and consumed or lost in energy storage operations during the provision of services, including but not limited to energy purchased and stored for resale. It shall also include but not be limited to net settlements for exchange of electricity or power, such as economy energy, off-peak energy for on-peak energy, and spinning reserve capacity. In addition, the account shall include the net settlements for transactions under pooling or interconnection agreements wherein there is a balancing of debits and credits for energy, capacity, and possibly other factors. Distinct purchases and sales shall not be recorded as exchanges and net amounts only recorded merely because debit and credit amounts are combined in the voucher settlement.
B. The records supporting this account shall show, by months, the kilowatt hours and prices thereof under each purchase contract and the charges and credits under each exchange or power pooling contract.
This account shall include the cost of labor, materials used and expenses incurred in the operation of energy storage equipment includible in Account 351, Energy Storage Equipment—Transmission, which are
This account shall include the cost of labor, materials used and expenses incurred in the maintenance of energy storage equipment includible in Account 351, Energy Storage Equipment—Transmission, which are not specifically provided for or are readily assignable to other transmission maintenance expense accounts.
This account shall include the cost of labor, materials used and expenses incurred in the operation of energy storage equipment includible in Account 363, Energy Storage Equipment—Distribution, which are not specifically provided for or are readily assignable to other distribution operation expense accounts.
This account shall include the cost of labor, materials used and expenses incurred in the maintenance of energy storage equipment includible in Account 363, Energy Storage Equipment—Distribution, which are not specifically provided for or are readily assignable to other distribution maintenance expense accounts.
This account shall include the cost of labor, materials used and expenses incurred in maintenance of plant, the book cost of which is includible in account 362, Station Equipment. (See operating expense instruction 2.)
This account shall include the cost of labor, materials used and expenses incurred in maintenance of structures, the book cost of which is includible in account 361, Structures and Improvements, and account 362, Station Equipment. (See operating expense instruction 2.)
The following appendix will not appear in the
The following Appendix will not appear in the
The Commission amends Schedule 3, Regulation and Frequency Response Service of the
Regulation and Frequency Response Service is necessary to provide for the continuous balancing of resources
The following Appendix will not appear in the
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Notice of designations and delegation of authority.
Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to delegate functions, powers, and duties as the Secretary deems necessary. In this notice the Secretary of HUD designates the Deputy Secretary as the Chief Acquisition Officer and designates the Chief Procurement Officer as the Senior Procurement Executive.
Lisa D. Maguire, Assistant Chief Procurement Officer for Policy and Systems, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 5276, Washington, DC 20410–3000; telephone number 202–708–0294 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
This notice includes the Department's designations of the Chief Acquisition Officer and Senior Procurement Executive. Previously, the designations were set forth in a
1. The Deputy Secretary is designated to serve as the Department's Chief Acquisition Officer. Functions of the Chief Acquisition Officer are outlined at 41 U.S.C. 414. If the Deputy Secretary position is vacant, the Senior Procurement Executive will perform all of the duties and functions of the Chief Acquisition Officer.
2. The authority of the Chief Acquisition Officer includes the authority to redelegate any of the duties and functions of the Chief Acquisition Officer to the Senior Procurement Executive. Such delegations will be made via separate notice published in the
1. The Chief Procurement Officer is designated as the Department's Senior Procurement Executive.
2. The Senior Procurement Executive shall report directly to the Deputy Secretary, without intervening authority, for all procurement-related matters.
3. The authority of the Senior Procurement Executive includes the authority to redelegate the duties and functions of the Senior Procurement Executive.
This designation revokes and supersedes all previous designations concerning the Chief Acquisition Officer and Senior Procurement Executive.
41 U.S.C. 414; section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)).
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Notice of delegation of authority.
In this notice, the Deputy Secretary of HUD, as the Chief Acquisition Officer, delegates procurement authority and certain Chief Acquisition Officer functions to the Senior Procurement Executive.
Lisa D. Maguire, Assistant Chief Procurement Officer for Policy and Systems, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 5276, Washington, DC 20410–3000; telephone number 202–708–0294 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
This notice delegates procurement authority and certain functions from the Chief Acquisition Officer to the Senior Procurement Executive. This notice also revises the delegation to the Senior Procurement Executive to include these functions. Accordingly, and in accordance with the authority set forth in the designation of the Deputy Secretary as the Chief Acquisition Officer, published elsewhere in today's
1. The Senior Procurement Executive is delegated authority to perform the following functions of the Chief Acquisition Officer, set forth in 41 U.S.C. 414:
a. Monitoring the performance of the Department's acquisition activity and acquisition programs, evaluating the performance of those programs on the basis of applicable performance measurements, and advising the Chief Acquisition Officer and the Secretary regarding the appropriate business strategy to achieve the mission of the Department;
b. Increasing the use of full and open competition in the acquisition of property and services by establishing policies, procedures, and practices that ensure that the Department receives a sufficient number of sealed bids or competitive proposals from responsible sources, to fulfill the Federal Government's requirements (including performance and delivery schedules) at the lowest cost or best value considering the nature of the property or service procured;
c. Increasing appropriate use of performance-based contracting and performance specifications;
d. Making acquisition decisions consistent with all applicable laws and establishing clear lines of authority, accountability, and responsibility for acquisition decisionmaking within the Department;
e. Managing the direction of acquisition policy for the Department, including development and implementation of the unique acquisition policies, regulations, and standards of the Department;
f. Developing and maintaining the Department's Acquisition Career Management Program to ensure that there is an adequate professional workforce, including working with the Department's Chief Human Capital Officer and principal program managers
g. As part of the strategic planning and performance evaluation process required under section 306 of title 5 and sections 1105(a)(28), 1115, 1116, and 9703 of title 31:
(1) Assessing the requirements established for Department personnel regarding knowledge and skill in acquisition resources management and the adequacy of such requirements for facilitating the achievement of the performance goals established for acquisition management;
(2) In order to rectify any deficiency in meeting such requirements, developing strategies and specific plans for hiring, training, and professional development; and
(3) Reporting to the Chief Acquisition Officer or, as directed by the Chief Acquisition Officer, to the Secretary on the progress made in improving acquisition management capability;
h. Promoting a high-performing, ethical, and dynamic supplier base by:
(1) Ensuring the timely completion of complete and accurate contractor past performance assessments; and
(2) Ensuring the submission and use of contractor business integrity data; and
i. Prioritizing efforts that help the Department buy smarter, specifically;
(1) Working with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Chief Information Officer (CIO) to increase the Department's use of governmentwide and agencywide strategic sourcing vehicles to save money and reduce duplication;
(2) Identifying goals for increasing competition and reducing the use of high-risk contracts, and tracking agency progress toward these goals;
(3) Supporting the agency's CIO in ongoing information technology (IT) portfolio investment reviews and working with the CIO to determine how best to support high risk IT acquisition, such as through the development of a specialized IT acquisition cadre; and
(4) Working with the CFO to target administrative savings opportunities.
2. The Chief Acquisition Officer retains all functions not delegated to the Senior Procurement Executive in section A of this notice.
3. The Senior Procurement Executive is also delegated the authority to exercise all duties, responsibilities, and powers of the Secretary with respect to departmental procurement activities. The authority delegated to the Senior Procurement Executive includes the following duties, responsibilities, and powers:
a. Authority to enter into, administer, and/or terminate all procurement contracts (as well as interagency agreements entered into under the authority of the Economy Act) for property and services required by the Department, and make related determinations and findings;
b. Authority to order the sanctions of debarment, suspension, and/or limited denial of participation pursuant to 48 CFR 2409.7001 and 2 CFR part 2424;
c. Responsibility for procurement program development, including:
(1) Implementation of procurement initiatives, best practices, and reforms; and
(2) In coordination with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, determination of specific areas where governmentwide performance standards should be applied and development of relevant Departmentwide procurement policies, regulations, and standards.
4. The Senior Procurement Executive is authorized to issue rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the authority delegated under this section A.
The Senior Procurement Executive may redelegate, by use of contracting officer Certificates of Appointment that clearly define the limits of the delegated authority, the following authority:
1. The procurement authority in section A.3. to qualified personnel within the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer.
2. Limited purchasing authority to other qualified departmental employees, as follows:
a. Simplified acquisitions (FAR Part 13), including the Government Purchase Card purchases; and
b. Issuance of delivery and task orders under contracts established by other Federal Government sources in accordance with FAR Part 8, or under prepriced indefinite-delivery contracts established by the Department.
The authorities delegated in section B that may be redelegated from the Senior Procurement Executive do not include the authority to further redelegate.
This delegation of authority supersedes all previous delegations concerning the Chief Acquisition Officer and Senior Procurement Executive and revokes and supersedes all previous delegations of authority to the Senior Procurement Executive.
41 U.S.C. 414; section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)).