Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Engineers Corps
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Labor Statistics Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
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.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing this interpretive rule to clarify that the Bureau's Ability-to-Repay Rule incorporates the existing definition of “assumption” under Regulation Z.
This clarification is effective July 17, 2014 and applicable beginning July 8, 2014.
William R. Corbett, Senior Counsel, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., at (202) 435-7700.
The Bureau is issuing this interpretive rule to clarify that where a successor-in-interest (successor) who has previously acquired title to a dwelling agrees to be added as obligor or substituted for the existing obligor on a consumer credit transaction secured by that dwelling, the creditor's written acknowledgement of the successor as obligor is not subject to the Bureau's Ability-to-Repay Rule (ATR Rule), § 1026.43, because such a transaction does not constitute an assumption as defined by Regulation Z § 1026.20(b).
In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010), (Dodd-Frank Act), Congress established the Bureau and generally consolidated the rulemaking authority for Federal consumer financial laws, including the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, in the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011.
Beginning January 10, 2013, the Bureau issued several final rules implementing amendments to TILA under the Dodd-Frank Act (the Title XIV Final Rules), including the ATR Rule.
Since the issuance of the Title XIV Final Rules, industry and consumer advocates have expressed uncertainty about the application of the ATR Rule in situations where a successor seeks to be added as an obligor or substituted for the current obligor on an existing mortgage. The Bureau has been asked whether the creditor is obligated under the ATR Rule to determine the successor's ability to repay the mortgage before formally adding the successor as an obligor. Often, this issue arises upon the death of the obligor, with the surviving spouse or children asserting rights under the mortgage, but it may also present itself in other settings, such as in separation or divorce, after a transfer from living parents to children, or a transfer to an inter vivos trust of which the consumer is the beneficiary. If the ATR Rule applies when a creditor adds a successor as an obligor, such transactions may be less likely to occur. There can be significant consequences for a successor that is not able to become an obligor on a mortgage. For instance, if the successor seeks a modification of the existing transaction as part of trying to retain the home, the creditor may refuse to modify the terms of the debt on the grounds that the successor is not a party to the existing obligation and therefore cannot enter into a modification agreement.
In general, as discussed in part II below, in these situations, where the addition or substitution of the successor as the obligor is not an “assumption” under § 1026.20(b), such addition or substitution is not subject to the ATR Rule's requirements. A creditor may rely on this interpretation as a safe harbor under section 130(f) of TILA. The Bureau plans to incorporate this interpretation into Regulation Z's Official Interpretations at a later date.
The Bureau is aware of other questions related to a servicer's obligations under the 2013 Mortgage Servicing Final Rules with respect to successors. Under Regulation X § 1024.38(b)(1)(vi), servicers are required to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure the servicer can promptly identify and facilitate communication with the successor-in-interest of a deceased borrower upon notification of the death of the borrower. On October 15, 2013, the Bureau issued a guidance bulletin providing examples of servicer practices the Bureau would consider to be components of the policies and procedures mortgage servicers must have in place to comply with these requirements regarding successors-in-interest.
The Bureau has received many questions regarding the applicability of the ATR Rule where a successor acquires a home that is the collateral for an existing consumer credit transaction and seeks to become an obligor on that transaction. A successor is a person who receives legal interest in a property, typically by a transfer from a family member, by operation of law upon another's death, or under a divorce decree or separation agreement.
Under Regulation Z § 1026.43, the ATR Rule applies to any “covered transaction” defined, with certain enumerated exceptions, as “any consumer credit transaction that is secured by a dwelling . . . including any real property attached to a dwelling.” Under § 1026.43(c), a creditor must make a reasonable and good faith determination that the consumer has the ability to repay at or before consummation of the covered transaction. Similarly, Regulation Z generally requires creditors to provide disclosures required under § 1026.18 or § 1026.19 to consumers before consummation of certain closed-end loans. In certain circumstances, however, creditors and consumers agree,
The terms “refinancing” and “assumption” are each assigned a specific meaning in § 1026.20(a) and (b). These terms generally define when a change in a closed-end loan's terms or obligors constitutes a new transaction under Regulation Z. For example, under § 1026.20(a), a refinancing occurs when an existing obligation is “satisfied and replaced by a new obligation undertaken by the same consumer.” Certain changes to the loan's terms, including, generally, workout agreements for delinquent borrowers, do
Section 1026.20(a) and (b) address different types of events. Section 1026.20(a) addresses changes to a loan's terms—such as an increase in the interest rate in a transaction initially disclosed as a fixed-rate transaction. In contrast, § 1026.20(b) applies to changes in the loan's obligors. Under § 1026.20(b) an assumption occurs when—and only when—the creditor “expressly agrees in writing with a subsequent consumer to accept that consumer as a primary obligor on an existing residential mortgage transaction.”
The Bureau believes that just as comment 43(a)-1 explicitly incorporates the definition of “refinancing” in § 1026.20(a)—and the limitations on that definition—into the scope of § 1026.43, so, too, the ATR requirement in § 1026.43 should be interpreted to incorporate the existing Regulation Z standard for transactions involving a change of obligors set forth in § 1026.20(b). Unless the change satisfies the definition of an “assumption” under § 1026.20(b), a change of obligors does not trigger the ATR requirements under § 1026.43.
The Bureau's interpretation is consistent with comment 43(a)-1 and consistent with the Bureau's purposes in issuing the Ability-to-Repay Rule. This interpretation applies a standard to transactions that involve new obligors that is consistent with the standard that exists in Regulation Z generally. The Bureau believes it would be potentially incongruous to interpret § 1026.43 as
As noted above, § 1026.43 should be interpreted to incorporate the existing standards under § 1026.20(b) for determining whether a transaction is an “assumption.” An assumption under § 1026.20(b) occurs when the creditor agrees in writing to accept a subsequent consumer as a primary obligor on an existing “residential mortgage transaction.” A “residential mortgage transaction” is a transaction in which a consumer finances the acquisition or initial construction of the consumer's principal dwelling.
A residential mortgage transaction does not arise where a successor takes on the debt obligation that is secured by property the successor previously acquired.
In contrast to the successor situation described above, if a consumer without an existing interest takes on the obligation of the existing borrower in order to finance the acquisition of the consumer's principal dwelling, the transaction is a residential mortgage transaction. In such a case, where the creditor expressly agrees in writing to the new primary obligor, an assumption has occurred under § 1026.20(b), and it is subject to the ability-to-repay requirements in § 1026.43, in addition to other requirements of Regulation Z. Moreover, where a creditor adds a successor as the obligor, whether that event is subject to § 1026.43 or not, the extension of credit remains a consumer credit transaction under Regulation Z. The creditor, assignee, or servicer must comply with any ongoing obligations pertaining to the extension of consumer credit, such as the requirement to provide monthly statements in § 1026.41 and the requirement to notify the obligors of adjustments to the loan's interest rate in § 1026.20(c) and (d).
This rule articulates the Bureau's interpretation of Regulation Z, and the Truth-in-Lending Act. It is therefore exempt from the APA's notice and comment rulemaking requirements pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).
The Bureau has determined that this rule does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Embraer Model ERJ-190 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with an enhanced flight-vision system. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is July 17, 2014. We must receive your comments by September 2, 2014.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0209 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Dale Dunford, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2239; facsimile 425-227-1320.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On December 10, 2012, Embraer applied for a change to Type Certificate No. A57NM to add an enhanced flight-vision system to the Embraer Model ERJ-190 airplane. The Embraer Model ERJ-190 airplane is a low-wing, conventional-tail, twin-turbofan, transport-category airplane with seating for up to 124 passengers.
The EFVS uses new and novel or unusual technology for which the FAA has no certification criteria. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.773 does not permit visual distortions and reflections that could interfere with the pilot's normal duties, and was not written in anticipation of such technology. Because § 25.773 does not provide for any alternatives or considerations for such a new and novel system, it is necessary to establish safety requirements that assure an equivalent level of safety and effectiveness of the pilot-compartment view as intended by this rule. Other applications for certification of such technology are anticipated in the near future and magnify the need to establish FAA safety standards that can be applied consistently for all such approvals. Special conditions are therefore prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Under the provisions of § 21.101, Embraer must show that the Model ERJ-190 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A57NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type-certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in A57NM are as follows:
14 CFR part 25, Amdts. 25-1 through 25-101 in entirety. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model ERJ-190 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model ERJ-190 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.
The Model ERJ-190 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
Installation of an enhanced flight-vision system (EFVS).
On January 9, 2004, the FAA published revisions to operational rules in 14 CFR parts 1, 91, 121, 125 and 135 to allow aircraft to operate below certain altitudes during a straight-in instrument approach while using an EFVS to meet certain visibility requirements.
Some Enhanced Vision Systems (EVS) were approved prior to this rule change in accordance with provisions of Special Conditions (re: ANM-SC-159) that addressed requirements for the pilot-compartment view and limited the scope of intended functions permissible under the operational rules at the time (re: § 91.175). In particular, the intended function of the EVS imagery was to present a view that aided the pilot during the approach, and which the pilot could use to detect and identify the visual references for the intended runway, as listed in 14 CFR 91.175(c)(3), down to 100 feet above the touchdown zone. However, the EVS imagery alone was not to be used as a means to satisfy visibility requirements below 100 feet, as a means to satisfy flight-visibility requirements (re: § 91.175(c)(2)), nor as flight guidance or as a substitute for the outside view for maneuvering the airplane.
The operational rule change expands the permissible application of certain EVSs that are certified to meet the new requirements for an EFVS. The rule will allow the use of EFVS for operation between the minimum descent altitude (MDA) or decision height (DH) to meet new visibility requirements found in § 91.175(l). Consequently, the intended function of the EFVS, unlike the previously approved EVS, includes the pilot's use of the imagery to determine that the “enhanced flight visibility” is not less than the minimum visibility prescribed for the instrument approach, and may be used for maneuvering the airplane between MDA or DH, and 100 feet above touchdown-zone elevation. See Advisory Circular (AC) 20-167 for a more in-depth description of the intended function.
The EFVS uses new and novel or unusual technology that displays video-raster imagery in the field of view regulated by 14 CFR 25.773. This rule does not permit distortions and reflections in the pilot-compartment view that can interfere with normal duties and was not written in anticipation of such technology. The video image potentially interferes with the pilot's ability to see the natural scene in the center of the forward field of view.
Unlike the pilot's natural forward vision, the EFVS image is infrared-based, monochrome, two-dimensional (i.e., no depth perception), and of lower resolution than normal human vision provides. While the pilot may be readily able to see around and through small individual stroke-written symbols on the HUD, the pilot may not be able to see around or through the image that fills the display without some interference of the outside view. Nevertheless, the EFVS may be capable of meeting an equivalent level of safety when considering the combined view of the image and the outside scene, which is visible to the pilot through the image. It is essential that the pilot can use this combination of image and natural view of the outside scene as safely and effectively as the pilot-compartment view currently available without the EFVS image.
Because § 25.773 does not expressly provide for any alternatives or considerations for such a new and novel system, it is necessary to establish safety requirements that assure an equivalent level of safety and effectiveness of the pilot-compartment view as intended by that rule. The purpose of these special conditions is to provide the unique
Compliance with these special conditions is required for the EFVS to be found acceptable for the following intended functions, in accordance with § 91.175(l) and (m):
1. Presenting an image that would aid the pilot during a straight-in instrument approach.
2. Enable the pilot to determine the “enhanced flight visibility,” as required by § 91.175(l)(2) for descent and operation below MDA/DH.
3. Enable the pilot to use the EFVS imagery to detect and identify the “visual references for the intended runway” required by § 91.175(l)(3), to continue the approach with vertical guidance to 100 feet height above touchdown-zone elevation.
The term “enhanced vision system (EVS)” has been commonly used to refer to a system comprised of a head-up display, imaging sensor(s), and avionics interfaces that display the sensor imagery on the HUD, and overlay that imagery with alpha-numeric and symbolic flight information. However, the term has also been commonly used in reference to systems that display the sensor imagery, with or without other flight information, on a head-down display. Hence, to avoid confusion, the FAA defined the term “enhanced flight-vision system (EFVS)” to refer to certain EVS systems that meet the requirements of the new rule, in particular the requirement for a HUD and specified flight information, and can be used to determine “enhanced flight visibility.” EFVS can be considered a subset of systems otherwise labeled EVS.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Embraer Model ERJ-190 airplane. Should Embraer apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the EFVS modification to the Embraer Model ERJ-190 airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
The FAA requests comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Embraer Model ERJ-190 airplane.
1. EFVS imagery on the HUD must not degrade the safety of flight or interfere with the effective use of outside visual references for required pilot tasks during any phase of flight in which it is to be used.
2. To avoid unacceptable interference with the safe and effective use of the pilot-compartment view, the EFVS device must meet the following requirements:
a. EFVS design must minimize unacceptable display characteristics or artifacts (e.g. noise, “burlap” overlay, running water droplets) that obscure the desired image of the scene, impair the pilot's ability to detect and identify visual references, mask flight hazards, distract the pilot, or otherwise degrade task performance or safety.
b. Control of EFVS display brightness must be sufficiently effective, in dynamically changing background (ambient) lighting conditions, to prevent full or partial blooming of the display that would distract the pilot, impair the pilot's ability to detect and identify visual references, mask flight hazards, or otherwise degrade task performance or safety. If automatic control for image brightness is not provided, it must be shown that a single manual setting is satisfactory for the range of lighting conditions encountered during a time-critical, high-workload phase of flight (e.g., low-visibility instrument approach).
c. A readily accessible control must be provided that permits the pilot to immediately deactivate and reactivate display of the EFVS image on demand, without removing the pilot's hands from the primary flight controls (yoke or equivalent) or thrust control.
d. The EFVS image on the HUD must not impair the pilot's use of guidance information, or degrade the presentation and pilot awareness of essential flight information displayed on the HUD, such as alerts, airspeed, attitude, altitude and direction, approach guidance, wind-shear guidance, TCAS resolution advisories, and unusual-attitude recovery cues.
e. The EFVS image and the HUD symbols, which are spatially referenced to the pitch scale, outside view, and image, must be scaled and aligned (i.e., conformal) to the external scene and, when considered singly or in combination, must not be misleading, cause pilot confusion, or increase workload. There may be airplane attitudes or cross-wind conditions which cause certain symbols, such as the zero-pitch line or flight-path vector, to reach field-of-view limits such that they cannot be positioned conformably with the image and external scene. In such cases, these symbols may be displayed, but with an altered appearance which makes the pilot aware that they are no longer displayed conformably (for example, “ghosting”).
f. A HUD system used to display EFVS images must, if previously certified, continue to meet all of the requirements of the original approval.
3. The safety and performance of the pilot tasks associated with the use of the pilot-compartment view must be not be degraded by the display of the EFVS image. Pilot tasks which must not be degraded by the EFVS image include:
a. Detection, accurate identification, and maneuvering, as necessary, to avoid traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other hazards of flight.
b. Accurate identification and utilization of visual references required for every task relevant to the phase of flight.
4. Appropriate limitations must be stated in the Operating Limitations section of the Airplane Flight Manual to prohibit the use of the EFVS for functions that have not been found to be acceptable.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations; amendment.
This document amends final regulations (TD 9664) that were published in the
Jennifer N. Keeney, (202) 317-6850 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations that are the subject of these amendments are under section 67 of the Internal Revenue Code. The final regulations (TD 9664) were published in the
The Treasury Department and the IRS received a comment raising concerns about the effective/applicability date of the regulations. As issued, the final regulations apply to taxable years beginning on or after May 9, 2014. Therefore, fiduciaries of existing trusts and calendar-year estates would implement the rules beginning January 1, 2015. However, the rules would apply immediately to any non-grantor trust created after May 8, 2014, the estate of any decedent who dies after May 8, 2014, and any existing fiscal-year estate with a taxable year beginning after May 8, 2014. The commentator stated that the effective/applicability date in the regulations does not give fiduciaries of these trusts and estates sufficient time to implement the changes that are necessary to comply with the regulations. Specifically, the commentator is concerned about allowing fiduciaries sufficient time to design and implement the necessary program changes to determine the portion of a bundled fee that is attributable to costs that are subject to the 2-percent floor versus costs that are not subject to the 2-percent floor. In response to these comments, this document amends § 1.67-4(d) of the Final Regulations so that the regulations apply to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2015.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(d)
Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
The Department of Defense is publishing this final rule to implement the TRICARE Certified Mental Health Counselor (TCMHC) provider type as a qualified mental health provider authorized to independently diagnose and treat TRICARE beneficiaries and receive reimbursement for services. Additionally, we are extending the time frame that was mentioned in the Interim Final Rule for meeting certain education, examination, and supervised clinical practice criteria to be considered for authorization as a TCMHC. The time frame has been changed from prior to January 1, 2015, to prior to January 1, 2017. One final set of criteria shall apply for the authorization of the TCMHC beginning January 1, 2017. The supervised mental health counselor (SMHC) provider type, while previously proposed to be terminated under TRICARE, is now continued indefinitely as an extramedical individual provider practicing mental health counseling under the supervision of a TRICARE-authorized physician.
Dr. Patricia Moseley, Defense Health Agency, Clinical Support Division, Behavioral Health Branch, 703-681-0064.
The purpose of this final rule is to prescribe regulations that will allow licensed or certified mental health counselors to be able to independently provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries and receive payment for those services. The final rule incorporates the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2010 report for the independent practice of mental health counselors (MHCs) under TRICARE, including specific education, licensure,
The legal authority for this Final Rule is Section 724 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 111-383, which required the Department of Defense to prescribe regulations to establish the criteria that would allow licensed or certified mental health counselors to be able to independently provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries and receive payment for those services.
This final rule establishes a new category of individual professional providers of medical care under the TRICARE program entitled TRICARE Certified Mental Health Counselors (TCMHC).
Under this final rule, beneficiaries are able to choose the services of a either a TCMHC who independently provides diagnostic and therapeutic services or a Supervised Mental Health Counselor (SMHC) who is authorized to provide mental health counseling pursuant to physician referral and ongoing supervision of the beneficiary's care. This final rule rescinds the expiration date published in the IFR for phase-out the SMHC provider type. The rule also adds appropriate definitions in 32 CFR 199.2 for SMHCs and TCMHCs.
The date of the transition period established in the IFR is extended in the final rule and is changed accordingly throughout this rule. TCMHCs who are authorized during the transition period are not required to be reauthorized under the new criteria after January 1, 2017. Additionally, MHCs who meet all certification requirements prior to the end of the transition period can apply for TRICARE authorization at any time after the transition period. Such authorization will be based on the certification requirements met prior to the end of the transition period. Providers who do not meet all of the certification requirements prior to the expiration of the transition period will be required to meet the quality standards recommended by the IOM and adopted by TRICARE, including possession of a master's or higher-level degree from a Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) accredited mental health counseling program of education and training as well as having passed the National Clinical Mental Health Counseling Examination (NCMHCE).
This final rule modifies the criteria in the IFR to permit supervision of a prospective TCMHC's post-master's clinical practice experience. Supervision is no longer restricted to a mental health counselor licensed for independent practice in mental health counseling in the jurisdiction where practicing but may be gained from multiple, licensed independent mental health professionals, similar to industry standards.
This rule is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; therefore, it is not an economically significant rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Congressional Review Act. All services and supplies authorized under the TRICARE Basic Program must be determined to be medically necessary in the treatment of an illness, injury or bodily malfunction before the care can be cost shared by TRICARE. For this reason, DoD anticipates that TRICARE will have a marginal increase in cost associated with increased access to authorized mental health counselors within the TRICARE basic program.
1. The Conference Report (House Report 109-360) to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, requested the Department of Defense to report on actions taken to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of procedures to facilitate physician referral and supervision of MHCs. The report included a description of “best practices” employed throughout the military health system (MHS) to ensure access to services provided by MHCs under the TRICARE program. The report concluded that there remained significant variability among the states in training programs and requirements for licensure as a MHC. The report stated that while there is evidence that the extent of training variability decreased over time, it continued to be evident that professional counselors licensed to practice had quite varying exposure to classroom education and supervised clinical experiences in the assessment and treatment of persons with mental disorders.
2. Section 717 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Public Law 111-181, directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct an independent study of the credentials, preparation, and training of individuals practicing as licensed MHCs and to make recommendations for permitting licensed MHCs to practice independently under the TRICARE program. In this study, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies of Science recommended allowing licensed MHCs who meet certain requirements for training, education, experience, certification, and licensure to practice independently under the TRICARE program. This final rule implements changes to 32 CFR Part 199 largely based on those recommendations.
3. Section 724 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 111-383, required the Department of Defense to prescribe regulations that establish the criteria for the independent practice of mental health counselors, as previously studied by the IOM in accordance with Section 717 of FY 2008 NDAA. As a result, the published Interim Final Rule—TRICARE: Certified Mental Health Counselors (76
This final rule establishes certification criteria largely consistent with the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2010 study, “Provision of Mental Health Counseling Services under TRICARE,” (
A master's or higher level degree in counseling from a program in mental health counseling or clinical mental health counseling that is accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP); a state license in mental health counseling at the `clinical' or the higher or highest level available in states that have tiered licensing schemes; the passage of the National Clinical Mental Health Counseling Examination; and a well-defined scope of practice for practitioners (p. 10).
TRICARE adopts the quality standards recommended by the IOM. We understand the availability of CACREP accredited clinical mental health counseling training programs and the use of the NCMHCE examination as quality standards are not yet widespread in the field. To support this health care provider transition, the new quality standards for the independent practice of TCMHCs will not fully replace existing criteria, including regional accreditation of institution programs and passage of the National Counselor Exam (NCE), until January 1, 2017. While the IFR set an expiration date for authorization of SMHCs to coincide with the end of the transition period, this final rule specifies that TRICARE will continue authorization of SMHCs indefinitely to preserve access to care for our beneficiaries during and after the transition period. This will preserve patient access to an experienced and well-trained mental health professional provider group. At the same time, this final rule is designed to encourage greater participation of qualified MHCs to become independent TCMHCs and thus improve access to quality mental health treatment for our beneficiaries.
In reviewing the interim final rule, we realized that we inadvertently failed to update several other provisions of the regulation that reference “mental health counselors” to account for the expansion of provider types in this field and the different rules that apply to each. Consequently, in this final rule, we have deleted the definition of “mental health counselor” from 32 CFR 199.2 and replaced it with definitions of “Supervised Mental Health Counselor” and “TRICARE Certified Mental Health Counselor.” We have also revised 32 CFR 199.7(e)(3) to clearly indicate that claims for reimbursement for services of supervised mental health counselors must include certification to the effect that a written communication has been made or will be made to the referring physician at the end of treatment, or more frequently, as required by the referring physician. There is no similar requirement for TCMHCs as they are authorized to practice independently
The Interim Final Rule: TRICARE—Certified Mental Health Counselors was published in the
The Department has examined the impact of this final rule as required by Executive Orders (EOs) 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (January 18, 2011, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and the Congressional Review Act [5 U.S.C. 804(2)].
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year). We estimate that this rulemaking is not “economically significant” as measured by the $100 million threshold and, hence, is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act or the E.O.s.
Under the Congressional Review Act, a major rule may not take effect until at least 60 days after submission to Congress of a report regarding the rule. A major rule is one that would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or have certain other impacts. This Final rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. This rule is not an economically significant regulatory action, and it has been certified that it will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of the RFA.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any one year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold level is currently approximately $140 million. This final rule will not mandate any requirements for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This rule will not impose significant additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502-3511). Existing information collection requirements of the TRICARE and Medicare programs will be utilized. TRICARE authorized and non-network providers will be coding and filing claims in the same manner as they currently are with TRICARE.
This rule has been examined for its impact under E.O. 13132, and it does not contain policies that have federalism implications that would have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of Government. Therefore, consultation with State and local officials is not required.
Claims, Dental health, Health care, Health insurance, Individuals with disabilities, Military personnel.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55.
(b) * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ix) * * *
(A)
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(N)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(iv) * * *
(C)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(e) * * *
(3) Claims involving the services of marriage and family counselors, pastoral counselors, and supervised mental health counselors. CHAMPUS requires that marriage and family counselors, pastoral counselors, and supervised mental health counselors make a written report to the referring physician concerning the CHAMPUS beneficiary's progress. Therefore, each claim for reimbursement for services of marriage and family counselors, pastoral counselors, and supervised mental health counselors must include certification to the effect that a written communication has been made or will be made to the referring physician at the end of treatment, or more frequently, as required by the referring physician.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the Hatchett Creek (US-41) Twin Bridges, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway mile 56.9, Venice, FL. Changing the operational schedule of the Hatchett Creek (US-41) Twin Bridges will allow the 8 hour, Sarasota Iron Man Triathlon to occur annually without being interrupted. This event is anticipated to be scheduled annually on the second Sunday of November, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
This rule is effective August 18, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2013-0848]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Ms. Danielle Mauser, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 305-415-6946, email
On November 21, 2013, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Venice, FL” in the
The changes will have a minor impact on vessels transiting the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Venice, Florida, but will still meet the reasonable needs to navigation. This action will accommodate the Sarasota Iron Man Triathlon held annually on the second Sunday of November.
No comments were received. This rule will allow the Hatchett Creek Bridge to remain closed to navigation for eight hours for an annual event. This rule will revise paragraph (b) in 33 CFR 117.287 to include this eight hour closure for the second Sunday in November annually. The Hatchett Creek (US-41) Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 16 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet. Vessels with a height of less than 16 feet may pass through the bridge at any time. The Gulf of Mexico is the only alternative route, and this route would be unacceptable for certain classes of vessels such as tugs and barges.
The rule was developed after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below is a summary of the analysis based on the aforementioned statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. It does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it will only have a minor impact on vessels transiting the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Venice, Florida and it will still meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing the draw to open for safe transit under the bridge from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the second Sunday of November each year.
This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for eight hours annually. Vessels that can safely transit under the bridge may do so at any time. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, the use of voluntary consensus standards was not considered.
After analyzing this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), it has been concluded that this action is among a category of actions, that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(b) The draw of the Hatchett Creek (US-41) bridge, mile 56.9 at Venice, shall open on signal, except that, from 7 a.m. to 4:20 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need open only on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour, and 40 minutes after the hour and except between 4:25 p.m. and 5:25 p.m. when the draw need not open. On Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays from 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. the draw need open only on the hour, quarter-hour, half-hour, and three quarter-hour. This bridge need not open to navigation on the second Sunday of November annually, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., to facilitate the Iron Man Triathlon event.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Metro North WALK Bridge across the Norwalk River, mile 0.1, at Norwalk, Connecticut. The deviation is necessary to facilitate necessary maintenance and repairs to the electrical and mechanical operating systems at the bridge. This temporary deviation authorizes the bridge to open after an eight-hour advance notice is given under a revised operating schedule.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from July 17, 2014 through December 30, 2014. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used on July 4, 2014, until July 17, 2014.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0570] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Christopher J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District,
The Metro North WALK Bridge, mile 0.1, across the Norwalk River at Norwalk, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 16 feet at mean high water and 23 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.217(b).
The waterway users are seasonal recreational vessels and commercial vessels of various sizes.
The owner of the bridge, Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the regulations from July 4, 2014 through December 30, 2014, to allow the bridge to open after an eight-hour advance notice is given to help facilitate necessary electrical and mechanical maintenance and repairs at the bridge.
The Coast Guard will work with Connecticut Department of Transportation and Metro North to develop a long term repair schedule during this initial temporary deviation time period.
Under this temporary deviation, in effect from July 4, 2014 through December 30, 2014, the Metro North WALK Bridge at mile 0.1, across the Norwalk River, at Norwalk, Connecticut shall open after at least an eight-hour advance notice is given as follows:
(1) From 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., a maximum of one opening each day Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.
(2) From 9 p.m. to 3 a.m., a maximum of two openings each night, starting on Monday at 9 p.m. through Friday at 3 a.m. including holidays.
(3) From 9 p.m. Fridays to 3 a.m. Mondays, including holidays.
(4) For emergencies only at all other times.
(5) A delay of up to 20 minutes may be expected if a train is approaching so closely that it may not be safely stopped.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. There are no alternate routes. The bridge can open in the event of an emergency situation.
Vessel operators will be notified of these changes to the bridge operating schedule through a Local Notice to Mariners publication and a Safety Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB) issued by the Coast Guard so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact 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 effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Michigan in Winnetka, IL. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Michigan due to a barge-based fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.
This rule is effective from 9:15 p.m. until 10 p.m. on August 16, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2014-0259. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Joseph McCollum, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan; telephone 414-747-7148, email
On May 14, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone, Fireworks Display, Lake Michigan; Winnetka, IL in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 30 days and no comments were received. Accordingly, we have made no changes from the proposed rule.
On August 16, 2014, a fireworks display is expected to take place on Lake Michigan, Winnetka, IL, from a barge located at approximate position 42°06′24.19″ N, 087°43′7.92″ W (NAD 83). The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that an aerial firework display presents a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include falling and flaming debris.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or her designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be small and enforced for a short duration of 45 minutes. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port or her designated on-scene representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Michigan from 9:15 p.m. until 10 p.m. on August 16, 2014.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on his or her behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to the receipt of adverse comments, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule for Administrative Wage Garnishment published in the
The direct final rule published at 79 FR 37644 on July 2, 2014 is withdrawn effective July 17, 2014.
FPPS c/o Anita Jones, OCFO/OFM/FPPS, Mailcode 2733R, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4969; fax number: (202) 565-2585; email address:
Due to the receipt of adverse comments, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule amending EPA's claims collection standards to include Administrative Wage Garnishment, which published in
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Debt collection, Government employees, Garnishment of wages, Hearing and appeal procedures, Salaries, Wages.
5 U.S.C. 552a, 5512, and 5514; 31 U.S.C. 3701; 31 U.S.C. 3711
Accordingly, the amendment to subpart I published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Idaho (Idaho or the State) on April 21, 2014, to amend the Portneuf Valley maintenance plan for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM
This rule is effective on September 15, 2014, without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by August 18, 2014. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0388, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Karl Pepple at telephone number: (206) 553-1778, email address:
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
In 2004, Idaho requested that the EPA redesignate the Portneuf Valley area from nonattainment to attainment for PM
The MVEBs serve as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans and projects must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP before they can be adopted or approved. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or delay an interim milestone. The MVEB is the mechanism
In the 2004 maintenance plan, the on-road motor vehicle emissions inventory and MVEBs were developed using the EPA's motor vehicle emission factor model, MOBILE6, and paved road dust emissions factors calculated with the 1995 version of the EPA's
On March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9411), the EPA published a notice of availability of the MOVES2010 model for use in developing MVEBs for SIPs and for conducting transportation conformity analyses. The MOVES2010 model is the EPA's state of the art tool for estimating highway emissions. The EPA subsequently released two minor model revisions: MOVES2010a in September 2010, and MOVES2010b in April 2012. On February 4, 2011 (76 FR 6328), the EPA announced an update to the AP-42 method for estimating paved road dust emissions (2011 AP-42). MOVES2010 and the 2011 AP-42 paved road dust emissions factors are required to be used in new regional emissions analyses for transportation conformity determinations in the Portneuf Valley PM
Idaho's SIP revision changed only the on-road motor vehicle emissions in the 2004 maintenance plan. The SIP revision updated the on-road vehicle emissions inventory and the MVEBs using MOVES2010b and the 2011 AP-42 paved road dust emissions factors and used the latest planning assumptions. Idaho explained that the point and area source emissions in the 2004 maintenance plan remained unchanged. The growth assumptions remained valid as did the control strategy assumptions for categories other than on-road vehicles. However, Idaho documented major changes in sand usage for wintertime antiskid treatments since the analysis used in the 2004 maintenance plan and this change resulted in a significant reduction in paved road dust emissions estimates as calculated using the 2011 AP-42 paved road dust method. As a result of the updated modeling and planning assumptions, the on-road emissions inventory has lower estimates for direct PM
To assess the maximum effect of the updated modeling and planning assumptions on net PM
As provided for in the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 93.124(a)), Idaho developed updated MVEBs by adding a safety margin to the updated on-road emissions inventory estimates. The safety margin was calculated from the difference in emissions between the updated on-road emissions inventory and the existing MVEBs.
The EPA evaluated the updated on-road vehicle emission inventory and the MVEBs in Idaho's SIP revision and concluded that the SIP continues to demonstrate its purpose of maintaining the PM
The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the SIP revision submitted on April 21, 2014, by the State of Idaho to the Portneuf Valley PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• 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
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide the 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 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 15, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxides, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(e) * * *
(2) The EPA approves as a revision to the Idaho State Implementation Plan, the Portneuf Valley PM
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB or Board).
Final rule; correction.
The NTSB is correcting a final rule published October 16, 2012, which
Effective July 17, 2014.
Members of the public may contact the NTSB Office of General Counsel concerning this correction at 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
David Tochen, General Counsel, (202) 314-6080.
In its October 16, 2012 final rule, 77 FR 63245, in which the NTSB published rule changes concerning several sections in part 821, including email submission of documents, petitions for reconsideration, consideration of evidence concerning the existence of an emergency in cases proceeding under part 821, subpart I of the NTSB rules, the NTSB erroneously truncated the text of a paragraph within § 821.54(b). The NTSB intended to keep the final sentence of § 821.54(b), in addition to a new sentence immediately preceding it, which provides the respondent may include attachments to a petition for review of the Administrator's emergency determination. Also, the final sentence of paragraph (b) should continue to state, “The petition must be filed with the Board by overnight delivery service or facsimile and simultaneously served on the Administrator by the same means.” The NTSB's removal of this sentence in the October 16, 2012 final rule was an unintentional oversight.
Administrative practice and procedure, Airmen, Aviation safety.
Accordingly, the NTSB amends 49 CFR part 821 by making the following correcting amendment:
49 U.S.C. 1101-1155, 44701-44723, 46301, Pub. L. 112-153, unless otherwise noted.
(b)
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB or Board).
Final rule; correction.
The NTSB is correcting a final rule published September 19, 2013, which inadvertently included an incorrect pronoun. This correction is a minor change to ensure consistency in the NTSB's references to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Effective July 17, 2014.
Members of the public may contact the NTSB Office of General Counsel concerning this correction at 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
David Tochen, General Counsel, (202) 314-6080.
In its September 19, 2013, final rule implementing changes to 49 CFR 821.19, the NTSB finalized an amendment to paragraph (d) of that section. 78 FR 57527. In the revision of paragraph (d), paragraph (d)(1) contains the pronoun “it,” which refers to the noun “the Administrator.” This is incorrect. As a result, by this correction, the NTSB makes a technical correction to this sentence, to use the correct pronoun in the sentence.
Administrative practice and procedure, Airmen, Aviation safety.
Accordingly, the NTSB amends 49 CFR part 821 by making the following correcting amendment:
49 U.S.C. 1101-1155, 44701-44723, 46301, Pub. L. 112-153, unless otherwise noted.
(d)
(2) The releasable portion of the EIR shall include all information in the EIR, except for the following:
(i) Information that is privileged;
(ii) Information that constitutes work product or reflects internal deliberative process;
(iii) Information that would disclose the identity of a confidential source;
(iv) Information of which applicable law prohibits disclosure;
(v) Information about which the law judge grants leave to withhold as not relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding or otherwise, for good cause shown; or
(vi) Sensitive security information, as defined at 49 U.S.C. 40119 and 49 CFR 15.5.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as preventing the Administrator from releasing to the
In rule document 2014-16467 appearing on pages 41137 through 41141 in the issue of Tuesday, July 15, 2014, make the following correction:
1. On page 41137, in the third column, in the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to recognize the State of Sonora as a region in Mexico that is free of fever ticks. We would also establish an exemption from acaricide dipping treatment requirements, and the documentation requirements associated with such dipping, that are currently applicable to cattle and other ruminants originating from Sonora as a condition of eligibility for entry to the United States, provided that certain conditions are met. This proposed action would remove restrictions on the importation of cattle and other ruminants from Sonora that we believe are no longer necessary and reduce the costs associated with tick dipping for exporters and importers of ruminants.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 15, 2014.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Betzaida Lopez, Senior Staff Veterinarian, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3300.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals, birds, and poultry into the United States to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases of livestock and poultry. Subpart D of part 93 (§§ 93.400 through 93.436, referred to below as the regulations) governs the importation of ruminants; within subpart D, §§ 93.424 through 93.429 specifically address the importation of various ruminants from Mexico into the United States.
In § 93.426, paragraph (a) provides that all ruminants offered for entry into the United States from Mexico must be inspected at a port of entry in order to determine whether they are infested with fever ticks
Section 93.427 contains conditions to mitigate the risk of the spread of fever ticks, tuberculosis, and brucellosis to U.S. livestock via the importation of cattle and other ruminants from Mexico. Paragraph (b) specifically addresses fever ticks, with (b)(1) containing requirements for ruminants that have not been exposed to any communicable disease, including the fever-tick-borne disease bovine babesiosis (currently referred to in the regulations as splenetic, southern, or tick fever), and (b)(2) containing requirements for ruminants that have been exposed to bovine babesiosis or found to be infested with or exposed to fever ticks.
Under paragraph (b)(1), cattle that have not been exposed to bovine babesiosis and have not been infested with or exposed to fever ticks may be imported into the United States through any port of entry, provided that:
• The cattle are accompanied by a certificate showing that they were examined by a veterinarian and determined to be free from communicable diseases and not to have been exposed to such diseases in the 60 days prior to movement to the port of entry;
• The cattle were loaded into cleaned and disinfected cars or trucks, if moved by rail or truck; and that, while en route to the port of entry, they were not trailed or driven through any area infested with fever ticks.
• The cattle are treated at the port of entry with an Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)-approved tickicidal dip once, under the supervision of an APHIS inspector.
Under paragraph (b)(2) of § 93.427, cattle that have been exposed to bovine babesiosis or that have been infested with or exposed to fever ticks, may be imported from Mexico into the United States, provided that:
• The cattle were inspected by a veterinarian in Mexico and, in the determination of the veterinarian, are free from fever ticks and all evidence of communicable diseases, and have not been exposed to communicable diseases, other than bovine babesiosis, during the 60 days prior to movement to a port of entry into the United States.
• The cattle were treated with an APHIS-approved tickicidal dip in Mexico within 7 to 12 days before being offered for entry into the United States. (Paragraph (b) of 9 CFR 72.13 lists approved tickicidal dips.)
• The cattle are accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with § 93.405 that states that this inspection and dipping have occurred. (Section 93.405 of the regulations contains conditions for the issuance of such certificates.)
• The cattle are presented for entry into the United States at the port of entry at Santa Teresa, NM, or a port of entry within Texas that has been approved by APHIS. (APHIS-approved
• The importer, or his or her agent, executes and delivers to the inspector at the port of entry an application for inspection and supervised dipping. In this application, the importer, or his or her agent, agrees to waive all claims against the United States for any loss or damage to the cattle occasioned by or resulting from this dipping, or resulting from the fact that they are later found to still be infested with ticks, and to any loss or damage to cattle that come in contact with these cattle.
• When offered for entry, the cattle receive an inspection by an inspector. If free from fever ticks, the cattle are treated once with an APHIS-approved tickicidal dip 7 to 14 days after the dipping in Mexico referred to above. If found to be infested with fever ticks, then the cattle are refused entry and may not be inspected again at a port of entry until they are again dipped and 10 to 14 days have elapsed.
• The cattle are not imported into an area of Texas quarantined for bovine babesiosis, or for tick infestation. (Information regarding such quarantined areas is found in 9 CFR 72.5.)
The Mexican State of Sonora has submitted requests to be evaluated for their fever tick status in accordance with our process for evaluating a foreign region's animal health status, which is described in § 92.2.
In response to these requests, we have prepared a risk assessment that evaluates the fever tick status of Sonora.
We are, therefore, proposing to recognize Sonora as free of fever ticks and to establish an exemption for cattle imported into the United States from Sonora from the acaricide dipping treatment requirements, and the documentation requirements associated with such dipping, that are currently applicable to cattle or other ruminants imported from all regions of Mexico, provided that certain conditions are met. Those conditions are discussed in greater detail below. This proposed action would remove restrictions on the importation of cattle and other ruminants from Sonora that we believe are no longer necessary and would reduce the costs associated with tick dipping for exporters and importers.
As noted above, current § 93.427(b)(1) contains import requirements for cattle from Mexico that have not been exposed to bovine babesiosis, while paragraph (b)(2) contains requirements for those that have. This proposed rule, in addition to making substantive changes to the regulations, such as exempting cattle from tick-free regions from acaricide dipping, would reorganize paragraph (b), placing the requirements for cattle from such regions in paragraph (b)(1) and those for the remainder of Mexico in (b)(2).
The introductory text of proposed paragraph (b)(1) would state that APHIS has evaluated certain regions of Mexico in accordance with § 92.2 and determined that they are free from fever ticks; a list of all such regions would be found on the Internet at
Proposed (b)(1)(i) would state that cattle imported from regions of Mexico that APHIS has determined to be free from fever ticks would have to be accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with § 93.405 that states that the cattle originate from such a region of Mexico. This requirement would provide us with written documentation from a competent Mexican veterinary authority regarding the origin of the cattle and would facilitate traceback in the unlikely event that any cattle from a tick-free region of Mexico are determined to be infested with fever ticks during an inspection at a port of entry on the Mexican border.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii) would state that if the cattle will transit through an area of Mexico that we have not determined to be free from fever ticks, they would have to be moved in a sealed means of conveyance. This proposed requirement would prevent the commingling of cattle from tick-free regions with cattle that are not from such regions during transit through Mexico prior to export to the United States.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(iii) would state that the cattle must be presented for entry into the United States at a port of entry listed in § 93.403(c). This paragraph represents an editorial rather than a substantive change, since cattle from Mexico that have not been exposed to bovine babesiosis are already subject to the general requirement in § 93.426 that ruminants from Mexico must be imported through ports designated in § 93.403. The port-of-entry requirement is intended to ensure that ruminants imported from Mexico enter the United States through land border ports with adequate inspection and quarantine facilities.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(iv) would state that the cattle must be segregated at the U.S. port of entry from cattle from regions of Mexico that have not been determined to be free of fever ticks. This proposed requirement would prevent cattle from tick-free regions from commingling at the port of entry with cattle that may have been exposed to bovine babesiosis.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(v) would state that the importer, or his or her agent, would have to execute and deliver to the inspector at the port of entry an application for inspection or supervised dipping. In this application, the importer, or his or her agent, would have to agree to waive all claims against the United States for any loss or damage to the cattle occasioned by or resulting from inspection or dipping or from the fact that the cattle are later found still to be tick infested and for any loss or damage to any other cattle in the importer's possession or control that come in contact with the dipped cattle. This paragraph is largely incorporated, with minor editorial changes, from § 93.427(b)(2)(iii) of the existing regulations, differing substantively in that the proposed rule would allow the importer to apply either for inspection or supervised dipping, rather than requiring him or her to apply for both, as the regulations do now.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(vi) would state that the cattle must either be inspected by an APHIS inspector at the port of entry for evidence of tick infestation, or be treated with an APHIS-approved tickicidal dip under the supervision of an inspector at the port of entry.
As noted above, the existing regulations require that all cattle from Mexico must, among other things, undergo a tick dip under the supervision of an APHIS inspector at
Finally, proposed paragraph (b)(1)(vii) would state that if any cattle in a shipment are determined, upon inspection at the port of entry, to be infested with fever ticks, the entire lot would be refused entry and, subsequently, could only be imported into the United States after meeting the conditions for the importation of cattle from regions of Mexico that APHIS has not determined to be free from fever ticks. As noted above, the finding of tick-infested cattle at the port of entry could result in the loss of the exporting region's tick-free status.
Because of the possibility that cattle imported from regions of Mexico that are not free of fever ticks have been exposed to bovine babesiosis, such imports would be allowed only under the conditions currently applicable to exposed cattle, which are contained in paragraph (b)(2) of § 93.427. In our proposed paragraph (b)(2), we would make some editorial revisions to make the regulations clearer and easier to read and would also make one substantive change, which we discuss below.
The provisions contained in proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v), which would be incorporated from the existing regulations, with the substantive change referred to above, would state that:
• The cattle would have to be inspeced by a veterinarian in Mexico and determined to be free from fever ticks and all evidence of communicable diseases and not to have been exposed to communicable diseases, other gthan bovine babesiosis, during the 60 days prior to movement to a port of entry into the United States.
• The cattle would have to be treated in Mexico with a tickicidal dip that is listed in § 72.13 within 7 to 14 days (the existing regulations list the range as 7 to 12 days) before being offered for entry into the United States.
• The cattle would have to be accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with § 93.405 that states that this inspection and dipping have occurred.
• The cattle would have to be presented for entry into the United States at the port of entry at Santa Teresa, NM, or a port of entry within Texas that is listed in § 93.403(c).
• The importer, or his or her agent, would have to execute and deliver to the inspector at the port of entry an application for inspection and supervised dipping. In this application, the importer, or his or her agent, would agree to waive all claims against the United States for any loss or damage to the cattle occasioned by or resulting from this dipping or from the fact that the cattle are later found still to be infested with ticks and for any loss or damage to any other cattle in the importer's possession or control that come in contact with the dipped cattle.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vi) contains port-of-entry inspection and dipping requirements. When offered for entry, the cattle would have to receive an inspection by an inspector. If found to be free from fever ticks, the cattle would have to be treated once at the port with a tickicidal dip listed in § 72.13. That dip would have to take place within 7 to 14 days after the required dipping in Mexico. If found to be infested with fever ticks, the cattle would be refused entry and could not be inspected again at a port of entry until they are dipped a second time and 7 to 14 days have elapsed following the second dipping. Under the current regulations, the required interval before an inspection could take place following the second dipping at the port is 10 to 14 days. We have found operationally, however, that when cattle become infested with fever ticks, ticks will emerge and present evidence of infestation in as few as 7 days. Throughout paragraph (b)(2), we would standardize the intervals between dips or between dips and inspections at 7 to 14 days. That proposed interval is adequate to determine whether the tickicidal treatment has been effective.
Finally, proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vii) would state that the cattle must not be imported into an area of Texas that is quarantined in accordance with § 72.5 for bovine babesiosis, or for tick infestation. This provision, like most of the others in proposed § 93.427(b)(2), is incorporated from the existing regulations.
As we mentioned previously in footnote 1 of this document, § 93.400 of the regulations currently defines
The amended definition would also provide that
Additionally, while the regulations currently refer to the disease borne by fever ticks as splenetic, southern, or tick fever, the international taxonomic community favors the term bovine babesiosis. Accordingly, we would remove references to splenetic, southern, and tick fever from the regulations and replace them with the term bovine babesiosis.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
We are proposing to recognize the Mexican State of Sonora as a region that is free of fever ticks. Further, while the
From 2009 to 2012, 1.26 million cattle were imported yearly from Mexico into the United States. About one-fourth came from Sonora. Cattle imported into the United States from Mexico are generally purchased by stocker operations that background the cattle on pasture before they are shipped to feedlots. Most of these entities are small according to the Small Business Administration standard for cattle producers.
The average unit price of cattle imported from Mexico from 2009 to 2012 was about $440. The average cost of dipping with acaricide is $3.50 to $10.00 per head. It takes approximately 5 seconds for 3 cattle to cross a dipping vat. For an average 500-head herd, dipping takes about 15 minutes. To inspect a 500-head herd takes from 4 to 12 hours. Depending on the size of the herd and time needed for inspection, some importers may choose to have the cattle dipped rather than inspected. The estimated cost of dipping is equivalent to about 1 to 2 percent of the value of the imported cattle. Any resulting cost savings realized by U.S. cattle importers due to inspection rather than dipping of cattle would depend on the relative price responsiveness of the sellers and buyers of the cattle. APHIS does not expect the rule to result in an increase of any consequence in the number of cattle imported from Mexico.
Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging the rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
APHIS is proposing to recognize the State of Sonora as a region in Mexico that is free of fever ticks. We would also establish an exemption from acaricide dipping treatment requirements, and the documentation requirements associated with such dipping, that are currently applicable to cattle and other ruminants originating from Sonora as a condition of eligibility for entry to the United States, provided that certain conditions are met. The documentation requirements for the importation of these cattle are currently covered under OMB control numbers 0579-0224 and 0579-0040. However, the application of seals to conveyances will be a new information collection activity.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as 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).
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 93 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
(b)(1)
(i) The cattle are accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with § 93.405 that states that the cattle originate from a region of Mexico that APHIS has determined to be free from fever ticks.
(ii) If the cattle will transit to the United States through an area of Mexico that APHIS has not determined to be free from fever ticks, they are moved in a sealed means of conveyance, and that seal remains intact throughout such transit.
(iii) The cattle are presented for entry into the United States at a land border port of entry listed in § 93.403(c).
(iv) The cattle are segregated at the U.S. port of entry from cattle from regions of Mexico that APHIS has not determined to be free from fever ticks.
(v) The importer, or his or her agent, executes and delivers to the inspector at the port of entry an application for inspection or supervised dipping. In this application, the importer, or his or her agent, waive all claims against the United States for any loss or damage to the cattle occasioned by or resulting from inspection or dipping or from the fact that the cattle are later found still to be tick infested, and for any loss or damage to any other cattle in the importer's possession or control that come in contact with the dipped cattle.
(vi) The cattle are either inspected by an APHIS inspector at the port of entry for evidence of tick infestation or are treated with a tickicidal dip that is listed in § 72.13 of this chapter under the supervision of an inspector at the port of entry.
(vii) If any cattle are determined to be infested with fever ticks, the lot of cattle is refused entry and may only be imported into the United States subject to the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2)
(i) The cattle have been inspected by a veterinarian in Mexico and, in the determination of the veterinarian, are free from fever ticks and all evidence of communicable diseases, and have not been exposed to communicable diseases, other than bovine babesiosis, during the 60 days prior to movement to a port of entry into the United States.
(ii) The cattle have been treated in Mexico with a tickicidal dip that is listed in § 72.13 of this chapter within 7 to 14 days before being offered for entry into the United States.
(iii) The cattle are accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with § 93.405 that states that this inspection and dipping have occurred.
(iv) The cattle are presented for entry into the United States at the port of entry at Santa Teresa, NM, or a port of entry within Texas that is listed in § 93.403(c).
(v) The importer, or his or her agent, executes and delivers to the inspector at the port of entry an application for inspection and supervised dipping. In this application, the importer, or his or her agent, agrees to waive all claims against the United States for any loss or damage to the cattle occasioned by or resulting from this dipping or from the fact that the cattle are later found to still be infested with ticks, and for any loss or damage to any other cattle in the importer's possession or control that come in contact with the dipped cattle.
(vi) When offered for entry, the cattle receive an inspection by an inspector. If free from fever ticks, the cattle are treated once with a tickicidal dip that is listed in § 72.13 of this chapter 7 to 14 days after the dipping required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. If found to be infested with fever ticks, the cattle are refused entry and may not be inspected again at a port of entry until they are again dipped and 7 to 14 days have elapsed.
(vii) The cattle are not imported into an area of Texas that is quarantined in accordance with § 72.5 of this chapter for bovine babesiosis, or for tick infestation.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of public meeting and availability of the Framework Document.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is initiating this rulemaking and data collection process to consider establishing energy conservation standards for computer and battery backup systems (computer systems). To inform interested parties and to facilitate this process, DOE has prepared a framework document that details the analytical approach and scope of coverage for the rulemaking, and identifies several issues on which DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments. DOE will hold a public meeting to discuss and receive comments on its planned analytical approach and issues it will address in this rulemaking proceeding. DOE
Additionally, DOE plans to conduct the public meeting via webinar. You may attend the public meeting via webinar, and registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web site at:
Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software.
The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please note that foreign nationals planning to participate in the public meeting are subject to advance security screening procedures. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 so that the necessary procedures can be completed. Please note that any person wishing to bring a laptop computer into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes. As noted above, persons may also attend the public meeting via webinar.
Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments electronically. However, comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email:
For information on how to submit or review public comments and on how to participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone (202) 586-2945. Email:
Title III, Part A
Under this authority, DOE published a notice of proposed determination which tentatively determined that computer systems meet the criteria for a covered product. 79 FR 11345 (Feb. 28, 2014). DOE received several
If DOE issues a final determination that computer systems are a covered product, it may establish a test procedure and energy conservation standard for computer systems. DOE may prescribe test procedures to assess the energy consumption of covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)) For the Secretary to prescribe an energy conservation standard pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) for covered products added pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1), he must determine that:
(a) The average energy use of the products has exceeded 150 kWh per household for a 12-month period;
(b) The aggregate 12-month energy use of the products has exceeded 4.2 billion kilowatt-hours;
(c) Substantial improvement in energy efficiency is technologically feasible; and
(d) The application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 is unlikely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, covered products of such type (or class) which achieve the maximum energy efficiency which is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1))
Today's framework document is the first step toward initiating this rulemaking process. DOE has prepared the framework document to explain the relevant issues, analyses, and processes it anticipates using when considering a new test procedure and energy conservation standard for computer systems. The focus of the public meeting noted above will be to discuss the information presented and issues identified in the framework document. At the public meeting, DOE will make presentations and invite discussion on the rulemaking process as it applies to computer systems. DOE will also solicit comments, data, and information from participants and other interested parties.
DOE is planning to conduct in-depth technical analyses in the following areas: (1) Engineering; (2) energy use; (3) product price; (4) life-cycle cost and payback period; (5) national impacts; (6) manufacturer impacts; (7) emission impacts; (8) utility impacts; (9) employment impacts; and (10) regulatory impacts. DOE will also conduct several other analyses that support those previously listed, including the market and technology assessment, the screening analysis (which contributes to the engineering analysis), and the shipments analysis (which contributes to the national impact analysis).
DOE encourages those who wish to participate in the public meeting to obtain the framework document and to be prepared to discuss its contents. A copy of the framework document is available at:
Public meeting participants need not limit their comments to the issues identified in the framework document. DOE is also interested in comments on other relevant issues that participants believe would affect energy conservation standards for these products, applicable test procedures, or the preliminary determination on the scope of coverage. DOE invites all interested parties, whether or not they participate in the public meeting, to submit in writing by September 2, 2014, comments and information on matters addressed in the framework document and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of coverage of and standards for computer systems.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, facilitated, conference style. There shall be no discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market shares, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. antitrust laws. A court reporter will record the proceedings of the public meeting, after which a transcript will be available for purchase from the court reporter and placed on the DOE Web site at:
After the public meeting and the close of the comment period on the framework document, DOE will collect data, conduct the analyses as discussed in the framework document and at the public meeting, and review the public comments it receives.
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for determining whether to establish energy conservation standards and, if so, in setting those new standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the omment period at each stage of the rulemaking process. Beginning with the framework document, and during each subsequent public meeting and comment period, interactions with and among members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues to assist DOE in the standards rulemaking process. Accordingly, anyone who wishes to participate in the public meeting, receive meeting materials, or be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this rulemaking should contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945, or via email at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes, Model A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a circumferential crack at the gland retaining-ring groove of certain retraction actuators on the main landing gear (MLG). This proposed AD would require an inspection to identify the part numbers of MLG retraction actuators and replacement of certain MLG retraction actuators. We are proposing this AD to prevent MLG retraction actuator failure that could prevent the full extension and/or down-locking of the MLG, possibly resulting in MLG collapse during landing or rollout, and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 2, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1405; fax (425) 227-1149.
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
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0283R1, dated December 9, 2013 [Corrected December 11, 2013] (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1408, dated July 22, 2013. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.
The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
In another NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
One commenter to the other NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”
This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus's EASA DOA. Where necessary throughout this proposed AD, we also replaced any reference to approvals of corrective actions with a reference to the Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph.
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in `manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $36,135 per MLG actuator. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $31,546,570, or $37,070 per product.
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 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
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 2, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by a report of a circumferential crack at the gland retaining-ring groove of certain retraction actuators on the main landing gear (MLG). We are issuing this AD to prevent MLG retraction actuator failure that could prevent the full extension and/or down-locking of the MLG, possibly resulting in MLG collapse during landing or rollout, and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD: Do an inspection of each MLG retraction actuator to determine whether the actuator has P/N 201590001, 201590002, 201590002-010, 201590002-020, 201590003;
At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Replace each MLG actuator having a part number identified in paragraph (g) of this AD with a new or serviceable actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1408, dated July 22, 2013. The actuator flight cycles and calendar time specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD are those accumulated since first installation on an airplane, or since last actuator overhaul, or since doing the actions described in MRBR Task 321147-01-1; whichever occurs later.
(1) For actuators with accumulated time-in-service equal to or more than 20,000 flight cycles or 10 years as of the effective date of this AD: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For actuators with accumulated time-in-service less than 20,000 flight cycles and 10 years as of the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 10 years since first installation on an airplane.
Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace each MLG retraction actuator having a part number specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, and for which the in-service history is unknown, with a new or serviceable actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1408, dated July 22, 2013.
An airplane that does not have Airbus Modification 26644 or Modification 150820 (for all airplane models), or Modification 27151 (for Model A321 series airplanes), applied in production, as applicable, is not affected by the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, provided that it can be conclusively determined that no MLG retraction actuator having a part number identified in paragraph (g) of this AD has been installed on that airplane since first flight.
As of the effective date of this AD, installation of an MLG retraction actuator having a part number identified in paragraph (g) of this AD is allowed, provided that the MLG retraction actuator has not accumulated or exceeded 20,000 flight cycles or 10 years since new; or 20,000 flight cycles or 10 years since last actuator overhaul.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified (if the operator elects to do so), provided the MLG remains extended.
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive Airworthiness Directive 2013-0283R1, dated December 9, 2013, [Corrected December 11, 2013] for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of several cracks found on the forward passenger airstair door step assembly. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine the serial number of the airstair step assembly, and if necessary, an electronic tap test, re-identification of the airstair step assembly, and replacement of the airstair step assembly. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the forward passenger airstair door step assembly, which could propagate and result in the structural failure of the steps and impede the evacuation of passengers in the event of an emergency egress situation.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 2, 2014.
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 Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jeffrey Zimmer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7306; fax (516) 794-5531.
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
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-20R1, dated December 30, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
There has been one in-service report of several cracks being found on the forward passenger airstair door step assembly between the steps and the sidewall panels. The investigation revealed that the application of potting compound may have been omitted during the bonding at the joint of the airstair door steps and the sidewalls. The omission of potting compound could cause the bonding sealant to crack. The cracks, if not detected, could propagate to result in the structural failure of the steps.
In the event of an emergency egress situation, the failure of the airstair step assembly could impede the evacuation of passengers.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the affected forward passenger airstair step assembly with a new or reworked step assembly.
Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD provides additional instructions for performing an electronic tap test of the airstair step assembly if the Serial Number (S/N) of the airstair step assembly cannot be found.
The actions in this AD include an inspection to determine the serial number of the airstair step assembly, and if necessary, an electronic tap test, re-identification of the airstair step assembly, and replacement of the airstair step assembly. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31, 2013. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.
The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
In another NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
One commenter to the other NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”
This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 76 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $6,460, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take up to 9 work-hours and require parts costing $206,175, for a cost of $206,940 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
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 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
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 2, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 series airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by a report of several cracks found on the forward passenger airstair door step assembly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the forward passenger airstair door step assembly, which could propagate and result in the structural failure of the steps and impede the evacuation of passengers in the event of an emergency egress situation.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes having serial numbers 4001 through 4393: Within 320 days after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection to determine the serial number of the airstair step assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31, 2013.
(1) If the serial number of the airstair step assembly cannot be found, or if the serial number is illegible: Before further flight, do an electronic tap test to determine the existence of epoxy compound, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31, 2013.
(i) If the existence of epoxy compound is confirmed, before further flight, re-identify the airstair step assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31, 2013.
(ii) If the existence of epoxy compound is not confirmed: Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the airstair step assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31, 2013.
(2) If the serial number of the airstair step assembly is in the affected range specified in paragraph 1.A. “Effectivity” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31, 2013: Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the airstair step assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31, 2013.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane an airstair step assembly with part number 85217008-001 containing a serial number in the affected range specified in paragraph 1.A. “Effectivity” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision B, dated October 31, 2013.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD if the serial number is known, and if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-77, Revision A, dated April 24, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-20R1, dated December 30, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is proposing to amend the existing regulations to establish a new restricted area in the waters surrounding U.S. Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville facilities at Station Mayport, Jacksonville, Florida (Station Mayport). Station Mayport is situated on the south side of the St. Johns River which, as the primary federal navigable channel entering the Port of Jacksonville, is heavily transited by commercial and recreational vessels. This United States Coast Guard (USCG) facility maintains a high operational tempo for both routine and emergency operations. The amendment to the existing regulations is necessary to enhance the USCG's ability to counter postulated threats against their personnel, equipment, cutters, and facilities by providing a stand-off buffer encompassing the waters immediately contiguous to the Station Mayport. The amendment will also serve to protect the general public from injury or property damage during routine and emergency USCG operations and provide an explosive safety arc buffer during periodic transfer of ammunitions between units, including cutters.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 18, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2014-0009, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Email:
Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CO (David B. Olson), 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to security requirements, we cannot receive comments by hand delivery or courier.
Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-761-4922 or Mr. Mark R. Evans, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Regulatory Division, at 904-232-2028.
Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps is proposing to amend the regulations at 33 CFR part 334 by establishing a new restricted area in the waters of the St. Johns River adjacent to Station Mayport. The proposed amendment will allow the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Mayport to restrict passage of persons, watercraft, and vessels in waters contiguous to this Command, thereby providing greater security to the personnel, equipment, cutters and facilities housed at the site.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Danger zones, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 33 CFR part 334 as follows:
40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).
(a)
(b)
(2) All persons, vessels, and other craft are prohibited from entering, transiting, drifting, dredging, or anchoring within the restricted area described in paragraph (a) of this section without prior approval from the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Mayport or his/her designated representative.
(3) Fishing, trawling, net-fishing, and other aquatic activities are prohibited in the restricted area without prior approval from the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Mayport or his/her designated representative.
(4) The restrictions described in paragraph (b) of this section are in effect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency is announcing that the period for providing public comments on the June 5, 2014, advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for “Managing Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Production in Indian Country” is being extended by 30 days.
Mr. Christopher Stoneman, Outreach and Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, (C304-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0823, facsimile number (919) 541-0072; email address:
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Indians, Indians-law, Indians-tribal government, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Idaho (Idaho or the State) on April 21, 2014, to amend the Portneuf Valley maintenance plan for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM
Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0388, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Karl Pepple at telephone number: (206) 553-1778, email address:
For further information, please see the direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the Rules section of this
If the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposed rule.
GSA is proposing to amend the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) to recommend that agencies annually submit a Federal Transportation Summary for prior fiscal year transportation activities for freight and cargo, including household goods (HHG). Every process improvement effort relies on data to provide a factual basis for making decisions. Data collection improves decision-making by helping to focus on objective information rather than subjective opinions. Agencies that choose to report will submit a Federal Transportation Summary through a Web-based tool named the Federal Interagency Transportation System (FITS). Reported items include agencies' data on transportation management, training, and shipments/expenditures by procurement method, spending, environmental/sustainable factors and shipping profile. This proposed rule, if adopted, will provide GSA the summary data necessary for analysis, which will assist GSA in developing enhanced Governmentwide transportation policies to make transportation management programs more efficient, cost-effective, and sustainable.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addresses shown below on or before October 15, 2014 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments in response to FMR Case 2014-102-2 by any of the following methods:
•
• Fax: (202) 501-4067.
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, ATTN: Hada Flowers, Washington, DC 20405-0001.
For clarification of content, contact Ms. Lee Gregory, Office of Government-wide Policy, at (202) 507-0871 or by email at
In almost every purchase of supplies and equipment from vendors, something must be moved and delivered. Since the early 1860s, the Federal Government has procured transportation using either a contract or a tender of service (also called a rate tender). There are Federal transportation laws and regulations that govern each of the five modes of transportation (air, water, pipeline, rail, and ground). Each mode has advantages and disadvantages that should be evaluated for cost, sustainability, speed of delivery, etc. The expense of moving this freight or cargo, including HHG, can be managed by the agency, consolidated as a shared service across agencies, or the transportation service provider (TSP), depending upon the contract or tender of service terms.
Over the last several years, GSA has worked with the Governmentwide Transportation Policy Council (GTPC) to identify key transportation performance measures, data elements, and collection standards necessary for more informed decision-making. The GTPC is composed of representatives from civilian agencies and the Department of Defense, and provides guidance in the planning and development of uniform transportation policies and procedures. The GTPC supports data collection as a necessary first step to improve transportation management.
In 2009, GSA contracted for a Governmentwide transportation management study. The study concluded that “most agencies have no single point of accountability for outbound transportation, have limited transparency into actual expenditures, and usually do not identify the most appropriate procurement method.” The study also identified inadequate research into the acquisition and selection of a transportation service provider (TSP), and a lack of standard training, expertise, and operational approaches to transportation management. A 2012 GSA study identified the need for reliable Governmentwide transportation data.
Best in class organizations exhibit a consistent set of behaviors to identify and implement improved processes that maximize the efficiency, cost effectiveness, and sustainability of their transportation operations. Organizations seeking continuous improvement monitor, measure and compare their performance against other organizations to improve their return on investment, generate greater savings, enhance their supply chain and improve sustainability. GSA is proposing to revise the FMR to recommend agencies annually submit a Federal Transportation Summary for prior fiscal year transportation activities for freight and cargo, including household goods. The data collected and reported will help agencies and GSA improve management, transportation services, and policy.
This proposed rule:
• Would revise 41 CFR part 102-117, subpart K, to recommend annual reporting of transportation data.
• Would redesignate the sections in 41 CFR part 102-117, subpart L.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, will not be subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
These revisions are not substantive, and therefore, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FMR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
This proposed rule is also exempt from Congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates to agency management or personnel.
Transportation Management, Transportation Reporting.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA proposes to amend 41 CFR part 102-117 as follows:
31 U.S.C. 3726; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 40 U.S.C. 501,
(a) The Federal Transportation Summary is an annual summary of an agency's prior fiscal year transportation data for freight and cargo, including household goods (HHG). Reported items include agencies' data on transportation management, training, and shipments/expenditures by procurement method, spending, environmental/sustainable factors and shipping profile.
(b) Agencies that choose to report should submit their Federal Transportation Summary through a Web-based tool named the Federal Interagency Transportation System (FITS). It is anticipated that agencies will upload some data from operational transportation systems, while other data will be reported directly into FITS. Agencies' Federal Transportation Summaries will provide GSA the data necessary for analysis that will result in enhanced transportation policies for delivering a more efficient, cost-effective, sustainable, and accountable Government. The data will also allow agency benchmarking to drive improvement.
No; however, all Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies are strongly encouraged to submit annually an agency-wide Federal Transportation Summary for the preceding fiscal year through FITS by October 31.
(a) Reporting transportation and transportation-related services will provide GSA with:
(1) Data to assess the magnitude and key characteristics of transportation within the Government (
(2) Data to analyze and recommend changes to policies, standards, practices, and procedures to improve Government transportation.
(b) Agencies that choose to report may identify opportunities within their organization to improve transportation management program performance as a result of the data analytics.
GSA will post a Federal Management Regulation bulletin at
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB or Board).
Notice of withdrawal of proposed rulemaking.
The NTSB is withdrawing its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on September 19, 2013. The proposed change in the NPRM would have required the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide releasable portions of the enforcement investigative report (EIR) to each respondent in emergency cases.
As of July 17, 2014, the proposed rule published September 19, 2013, at 78 FR 57602, is withdrawn.
David Tochen, General Counsel, (202) 314-6080.
On September 19, 2013, the NTSB published an NPRM and a final rule, related to the enactment of the Pilot's Bill of Rights, Public Law 112-153 at section 2(b)(2)(E) (August 3, 2012). In the NPRM, published at 78 FR 57602, the NTSB proposed requiring the release of the EIR in emergency air safety enforcement cases proceeding under subpart I of the NTSB's rules (Special Rules Applicable to Proceedings Involving Emergency and Other Immediately Effective Orders).
The NTSB received three comments in response to the NPRM. Two of the comments, submitted by Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) expressed support for the NTSB's proposed change. AOPA's comment included a suggestion that the NTSB require, in some cases, privilege logs and
The remaining comment, from the FAA, discouraged the NTSB from proceeding with the proposed change,
The FAA also points out the NTSB's promulgation of the proposed rule would have eliminated the paragraph concerning discovery procedures applicable to emergency cases. The FAA asks the NTSB to maintain its current rules concerning discovery procedures applicable to emergency cases.
The NTSB appreciates the points all three commenters proferred, and has carefully considered them. The NTSB finds the FAA's assertion concerning the lack of jurisdiction persuasive. The NTSB has decided to withdraw the proposed rulemaking, based on the lack of
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 18, 2014 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 20503. 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.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The invitation to use to use the tool will be discussed during consultations with clients. Manufacturing clients that choose to use the SMARTalent self-diagnostic tool will use it twice a year. First to understand how well their business goals and workforce practices are aligned. The second time they will use it that year will be to check on their progress. After they use it one time, they will understand where to make changes or enhancements to their business processes and talent management. There will be no need to use it more than twice a year: once to understand their operational baseline and the second time to check on their progress in aligning goals and workforce actions.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
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.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 15, 2014.
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 and instructions should be directed to Walter Ikehara, (808) 725-5175, or
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
Regulations at 50 CFR Part 665, Subpart F, require that a vessel must be registered to a valid federal fishing permit if it is used to fish with longline gear for Pacific pelagic management unit species (PMUS), land or transship longline caught PMUS, or receive longline caught PMUS from a longline vessel, within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of United States (U.S.) islands in the central and western Pacific, or to fish with troll and handline gear for PMUS within the EEZ around each of the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA).
Regulations at 50 CFR parts 665, Subparts D and E, require that the owner of a vessel used to fish for, land, or transship bottomfish management unit species (BMUS) using a large vessel (50 ft or longer) around Guam, or using a vessel within the EEZ around each of the PRIA, must register it to a valid federal fishing permit they hold.
Regulations at 50 CFR Part 665, Subparts B, C, D and E, require that a vessel used to fish for precious corals within the EEZ of U.S. islands in the central and western Pacific, must be registered to a valid federal fishing permit for a specific precious coral permit area.
This collection of information is needed for permit issuance, to identify actual or potential participants in the fishery, determine qualifications for permits, and to help measure the impacts of management controls on the participants in the fishery. The permit program is also an effective tool in the enforcement of fishery regulations and facilitates communication between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and fishermen.
Documents may be submitted via mail, fax, email or via Web-based application (National Permit System).
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 has 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.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Policy Guidance.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) is issuing supervisory and enforcement guidance entitled “Policy Guidance on Supervisory and Enforcement Considerations Relevant to Mortgage Brokers Transitioning to Mini-Correspondent Lenders,” (Policy Guidance) which relates to the Bureau's exercise of its authority to supervise and enforce compliance with RESPA and Regulation X and TILA and Regulation Z in certain transactions involving “mini-correspondent lenders.”
Paul S. Ceja, Senior Counsel and Special Advisor; Office of Regulations at (202) 435-7700.
The Bureau has become aware of increased interest among some mortgage brokers to restructure their business to become mini-correspondent lenders (mini-correspondents) in the possible belief that doing so will alter the applicability of important consumer protections that apply to transactions involving mortgage brokers. These protections include provisions in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Regulation X and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z, as amended by title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act). The Bureau has implemented the title XIV amendments to RESPA and TILA through final rules amending Regulations X and Z, issued beginning in January 2013. These rules generally took effect in January 2014.
The Bureau is issuing this Policy Guidance to identify for mortgage industry stakeholders, consumers, and the public generally questions the Bureau may consider in exercising its supervisory and enforcement authority under RESPA and TILA with respect to transactions involving mini-correspondent lenders.
The Policy Guidance begins by providing background on the Bureau's concern regarding the shift of some mortgage brokers to the mini-correspondent lender role, the RESPA and TILA consumer protections potentially affected by the transition of a mortgage broker to a mini-correspondent lender, and an overview of correspondent lending. The Policy Guidance follows this with a discussion of the regulatory framework under Regulation X and Regulation Z that determines the role and obligations of the parties in a mortgage transaction. The Policy Guidance then provides a non-exhaustive list of questions the Bureau may consider in the exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authority with respect to transactions involving mini-correspondent lenders. The Policy Guidance makes clear that no single question listed in the Policy Guidance is necessarily determinative of how the Bureau may exercise its supervisory and enforcement authorities. The Policy Guidance also makes clear that the facts and circumstances of the particular mortgage transaction being reviewed would be relevant to how the Bureau exercises these authorities.
The Policy Guidance states that the Bureau will closely monitor the practices of mini-correspondents, including former mortgage brokers that have converted to this form, to ensure that the protections afforded to consumers under federal consumer financial law, including the Bureau's implementing regulations, are not being evaded. Finally, the Policy Guidance also states that the Bureau will use all appropriate tools to assess whether supervisory, enforcement, or other actions are necessary.
The text of the Policy Guidance follows:
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) is issuing this “Policy Guidance on Supervisory and Enforcement Considerations Relevant to Mortgage Brokers Transitioning to Mini-Correspondent Lenders” (Policy Guidance) to identify the questions the Bureau may consider in exercising its supervisory and enforcement authority under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Regulation X and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z with respect to mortgage transactions involving mini-correspondent lenders (mini-correspondents), including transactions involving mortgage brokers that transition to mini-correspondent lender roles.
The Bureau has become aware of increased mortgage industry interest in the transition of mortgage brokers from their traditional roles to mini-correspondent lender roles. The Bureau is concerned that some mortgage brokers may be shifting to the mini-correspondent model in the belief that, by identifying themselves as mini-correspondent lenders, they automatically alter the application of important consumer protections that apply to transactions involving mortgage brokers. These protections include provisions in RESPA and Regulation X
Regulations X and Z apply certain requirements and prohibitions to compensation paid to a mortgage broker. These provisions include:
• Disclosure of mortgage broker compensation. Regulation X requires that the lender's compensation to the mortgage broker be disclosed on the Good-Faith Estimate and HUD-1 Settlement Statement.
• Inclusion of mortgage broker compensation in “points and fees.” Under Regulation Z, compensation paid to a mortgage broker by a consumer or creditor is included in points and fees for purposes of the points-and-fees cap for “qualified mortgages” and for the points-and-fees test for determining whether a mortgage is a “high-cost mortgage” under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA).
• Restrictions on mortgage broker compensation. TILA and Regulation Z
• Prohibition on steering to increase mortgage broker compensation. TILA and Regulation Z prohibit loan originators, including mortgage brokers, from “steering” consumers to transactions not in their interest, to increase the mortgage broker's compensation.
A correspondent lender, as generally understood in the mortgage industry, performs the activities necessary to originate a mortgage loan, i.e., it takes on the tasks usually performed by the originating lender. The correspondent lender takes and processes applications, provides required disclosures, and often, although not always, underwrites loans and makes the final credit approval decision. The correspondent lender closes loans in its name, funds them (often through a warehouse line of credit), and sells them to an investor by prior agreement. A full correspondent lender may have such agreements with multiple investors.
The Bureau understands that some entities may transition from being a mortgage broker to being a correspondent lender and, in so doing, may begin as a small correspondent with agreements with only a few investors. Entities attempting to move to the role of a correspondent lender may start by obtaining a warehouse line of credit, typically from a third-party “warehouse bank.” The warehouse line of credit will provide the funding for the mortgage loans the entities originate and sell to a third-party investor. Over time, the number of third-party investors with which the correspondent lender has agreements may grow.
Since the Bureau issued the title XIV rules, it understands that some mortgage brokers may be setting up arrangements with wholesale lenders in which they purport to act as mini-correspondent lenders. Under such arrangements, the mortgage broker may in form appear to be the lender or creditor in each transaction by engaging in activities such as closing the loan in its own name, funding the loan from what is designated as a warehouse line of credit, and receiving compensation through what may nominally take the form of a premium for the sale of the loan to an investor.
However, in substance, these mortgage brokers may not have transitioned to the mini-correspondent lender role and may be continuing to serve effectively as mortgage brokers. That is, these mortgage brokers may continue to facilitate brokered loan transactions between borrowers and wholesale lenders (i.e., entities which typically provide the funding for loans in transactions involving mortgage brokers). For example, the mortgage broker may enter into an arrangement with a lender designated as an “investor,” but that investor may function as the mortgage broker's wholesale lender, and not as a purchaser of loans in the secondary market. Such an “investor” may continue to perform the same origination activities it would perform as a traditional wholesale lender for the loans that it now “buys” from the mortgage broker. As well as performing these functions and agreeing to purchase the loans from the mortgage broker designated as a “mini-correspondent, the “investor” may also provide the warehouse line of credit that the “mini-correspondent” uses to fund its loans.
As discussed below, the requirements and restrictions that RESPA and TILA and their implementing regulations impose on compensation paid to mortgage brokers do not depend on the labels that parties use in their transactions. Rather, under Regulation X, whether compensation paid by the “investor” to the “lender” must be disclosed depends on determinations such as whether that compensation is part of a secondary market transaction, as opposed to a “table-funded” transaction. Likewise, under Regulation Z, whether compensation paid by the “investor” to the “creditor” must be included in the points-and-fees calculation and whether the “creditor” is subject to the compensation restrictions as a mortgage broker depends on determinations such as whether the “creditor” finances the transaction out of its own resources as opposed to relying on table-funding by the “investor.”
In exercising its supervisory and enforcement authority, the Bureau may consider factors that evidence the true nature of the mortgage transaction, i.e., whether the parties are engaging in good faith in a secondary market transaction between a lender and a third-party investor or, in fact, a typical primary market transaction involving a mortgage broker and a wholesale lender.
Regulation X defines a mortgage broker as a person, other than an employee of a lender, who renders origination services and serves as an intermediary between a borrower and lender in a federally-related mortgage loan transaction, including such a person that closes the loan in its own name in a “table-funded transaction.”
Similarly, the TILA and Regulation Z loan originator compensation requirements discussed above cover compensation paid to mortgage brokers in “table-funded” transactions. Under Regulation Z, a creditor is defined in relevant part as a person who regularly extends credit and to whom the obligation is initially payable on the face of the note.
By defining mortgage brokers to include entities which close loans in their own names in table-funded transactions—and by excluding from RESPA only bona fide secondary-market transactions—Regulation X recognizes that it is possible to structure transactions that take the form of the sale of a loan to an investor but where, in substance, the purchaser functions as the lender and the entity whose name is on the note is a mortgage broker. Regulation Z recognizes this as well by defining the term loan originator to include creditors in table-funded transactions and differentiating between such transactions and those in which a creditor draws upon a bona fide warehouse line of credit.
In exercising its supervisory and enforcement authority under RESPA and TILA in transactions involving mini-correspondents, the Bureau asks various questions relevant to understanding the true nature of the mortgage transaction.
Among the questions the Bureau asks are the following:
• Beyond the mortgage transaction at issue, does the mini-correspondent still act as a mortgage broker in some transactions, either brokering to the same wholesale lender that supplies the warehouse line of credit or otherwise?
○ If so, what distinguishes the mini-correspondent's “mortgage broker” transactions from its “lender” transactions?
• How many “investors” does the mini-correspondent have available to it to purchase loans?
• Is the mini-correspondent using a bona fide warehouse line of credit as the source to fund the loans that it originates?
○ Is the warehouse line of credit provided by a third-party warehouse bank?
○ How thorough was the process for the mini-correspondent to get approved for the warehouse line of credit?
○ Does the mini-correspondent have more than one warehouse line of credit?
○ Is the warehouse bank providing the line of credit one of, or affiliated with any of, the mini-correspondent's investors that purchase loans from the mini-correspondent?
○ If the warehouse line of credit is provided by an investor to whom the mini-correspondent will “sell” loans to, is the warehouse line a “captive” line (i.e., the mini-correspondent is required to sell the loans to the investor providing the warehouse line (or affiliates of the investor))?
○ What percentage of the mini-correspondent's total monthly originated volume is sold by the mini-correspondent to the entity providing the warehouse line of credit to the mini-correspondent, or to an investor related to the entity providing the warehouse line of credit?
○ Does the mini-correspondent's total warehouse line of credit capacity bear a reasonable relationship, consistent with correspondent lenders generally, to its size (i.e., its assets or net worth)?
• What changes has the mini-correspondent made to staff, procedures, and infrastructure to support the transition from mortgage broker to mini-correspondent?
• What training or guidance has the mini-correspondent received to understand the additional compliance risk associated with being the lender or creditor on a residential mortgage transaction?
• Which entity (mini-correspondent, warehouse lender, investor) is performing the majority of the principal mortgage origination activities?
○ Which entity underwrites the mortgage loan before consummation and otherwise makes the final credit decision on the loan?
○ What percentage of the principal mortgage origination activities, such as the taking of loan applications, loan processing, and pre-consummation underwriting, is being performed by the mini-correspondent, or an independent agent of the mini-correspondent?
○ If the majority of the principal mortgage origination activities are being performed by the investor, is there a plan in place to transition these activities to the mini-correspondent?
What conditions must be met to make this transition (e.g., number of loans, time)?
This document is intended to provide guidance to mortgage industry stakeholders, consumers, and the public related to the considerations that the Bureau may employ in the exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authority with respect to mortgage transactions involving mini-correspondents, including mortgage brokers transitioning into becoming mini-correspondents. The above list of questions is not an exhaustive list of the Bureau's considerations relevant to the exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authorities. In addition, no single question listed above is necessarily determinative of how the Bureau may exercise its supervisory and enforcement authorities. Furthermore the facts and circumstances of the particular mortgage transaction being
The Bureau will closely monitor the practices of mini-correspondents, including former mortgage brokers that have converted to this form, to ensure that the protections afforded to consumers under federal consumer financial law, including the Bureau's implementing regulations, are not being evaded. In doing so, the Bureau will use all appropriate tools to assess whether supervisory, enforcement or other actions are necessary.
This Policy Guidance is a non-binding policy guidance articulating considerations relevant to the Bureau's exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authority under Regulation X and RESPA, and Regulation Z and TILA. It is therefore exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).
The Bureau has determined that this Policy Guidance does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or we), in accordance with section 743(c) of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034, 3216), is announcing the availability of CPSC's service contract inventory for fiscal year (FY) 2013. This inventory provides information on service contract actions that exceeded $25,000 that CPSC made in FY 2013.
Eddie Ahmad, Procurement Analyst, Division of Procurement Services, Division of Procurement Services, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Telephone: 301-504-7884; email:
On December 16, 2009, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Consolidated Appropriations Act), Public Law 111-117, became law. Section 743(a) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, titled, “Service Contract Inventory Requirement,” requires agencies to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an annual inventory of service contracts awarded or extended through the exercise of an option on or after April 1, 2010, and describes the contents of the inventory. The contents of the inventory must include:
(A) A description of the services purchased by the executive agency and the role the services played in achieving agency objectives, regardless of whether such a purchase was made through a contract or task order;
(B) The organizational component of the executive agency administering the contract, and the organizational component of the agency whose requirements are being met through contractor performance of the service;
(C) The total dollar amount obligated for services under the contract and the funding source for the contract;
(D) The total dollar amount invoiced for services under the contract;
(E) The contract type and date of award;
(F) The name of the contractor and place of performance;
(G) The number and work location of contractor and subcontractor employees, expressed as full-time equivalents for direct labor, compensated under the contract;
(H) Whether the contract is a personal services contract; and
(I) Whether the contract was awarded on a noncompetitive basis, regardless of date of award.
Consequently, through this notice, we are announcing that the CPSC's service contract inventory for FY 2013 is available to the public. The inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that CPSC made in FY 2013. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the CPSC. We developed the inventory in accordance with guidance issued on December 19, 2011, by the OMB. (The OMB guidance is available at:
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 15, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) Program Management Office (PMO), 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.
The purpose of the information collection is to monitor the status of and electronically process invoices, receiving reports and individual claims for payment through the review and validation and approval phases for submission to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for payment.
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 15, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DLA Intelligence, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.
PERSEC is a Web application used by DLA personnel security specialists to maintain security clearance information on DLA civilian employees, military personnel, and contractors assigned to DLA. It is primarily a case management system used to supplement the Joint Personnel Adjudications System (JPAS) and to access information through database feeds. While JPAS is used to determine clearance eligibility, PERSEC is used to track security investigation status and generate summary reports.
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 15, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Logistics Agency, DLA Information Operations Richmond, ATTN: Mr. Walter B. Gooch, 8000 Jefferson Davis Highway, Richmond, Virginia 23297-5000; or call (804) 279-3075.
Once collected, AMPS encrypts the SSN and makes it available for viewing only to the personnel security officer. Once system access is approved or denied by the personnel security officer, the SSN is re-encrypted and then deleted from the AMPS application.
The system is maintained by DLA Information Operations to control and track access to DLA-controlled networks, computer systems, and databases. The records may also be used by law enforcement officials to identify the occurrence of and assist in the prevention of computer misuse and/or crim. Data, with all personal identifiers removed, may be used by management for system efficiency, workload, calculation, or reporting purposes.
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 15, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the DLA Logistics Information Service, ATTN: Mr. Robert A Burrow, DLIS-LAE, 74 Washington Ave. N., Suite 7, Battle Creek, MI 49037-3084, or call Mr. Robert A. Burrow at (269) 961-4410.
DoD EMALL is an Internet-based Electronic Mall, which allows customers to search for and order items from the government and commercial sources. DoD EMALL is a Department of Defense program operated by the Defense Logistics Information Service (DLIS). All users are required to register and be authenticated and authorized by a DLIS Access Administrator.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of availability.
DoD announces the availability of the Inventory of Contracts for Services for Fiscal Year 2013 pursuant to section 2330a of title 10, United States Code. The inventory is available to the public.
Office of the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, ATTN: OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/CPIC, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Mr. Jeff Grover may be contacted by email at
In accordance with section 2330a of title 10 United States Code, the Office of the Deputy Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Contract Policy and International Contracting (DPAP/CPIC) will make available to the public the annual inventory of contracts for services. The inventory is posted to the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Web site at:
National Guard Bureau, DoD.
Notice to add a new System of Records.
The National Guard Bureau proposes to add a new system of records, INGB 001, entitled “Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) Case Files” to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The information in this system will be used for processing FOIA and PA requests and administrative appeals; for participating in litigation regarding agency action on such requests and appeals; and for assisting the NGB in carrying out any other responsibilities under the FOIA and PA.
Comments will be accepted on or before August 18, 2014. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Jennifer Nikolaisen, 111 South George Mason Drive, AH2, Arlington, VA 22204-1373 or telephone: (571) 256-7838.
The National Guard Bureau notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) Case Files.
National Guard Bureau (NGB) Office of Information and Privacy (OIP), Office of the Chief Counsel, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington Hall 2, Arlington, VA 22204-1373.
Individuals who have requested documents under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act from the NGB FOIA Requester Service Center; individuals whose requests and/or records have been processed under the FOIA or PA and referred by other Federal agencies; and attorneys representing individuals submitting such requests.
Original records created or compiled in response to FOIA or PA requests and administrative appeals. Requests include requesters' name, mailing address, FOIA or PA case number, subject of the request, telephone numbers and email addresses. Responses to such requests and administrative appeals include all related memoranda, correspondence, notes and other related or supporting documentation.
10 U.S.C. 113, Secretary of Defense; 5 U.S.C. 552, Public Information; Agency Rules, Opinions, Orders, Records, and Proceedings; 5 U.S.C. 552a, Records Maintained on Individuals; 32 CFR 329, NGB Privacy Program; DoD 5400.7-R, DoD FOIA Program; DoD 5400.11-R, DoD Privacy Program; and DoDD 5105.77, National Guard Bureau.
Information is being collected and maintained for the purpose of processing FOIA and PA requests and administrative appeals; for participating in litigation regarding agency action on such requests and appeals; and for assisting the NGB in carrying out any other responsibilities under the FOIA and PA.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 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. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses may apply to this system.
Paper records in file folders and electronic storage media.
Retrieved by name of requester, subject matter, date of request, and FOIA or PA request case number.
Paper records are maintained in locked file cabinets with access only to officials based on requirements of assigned duties. Computer databases are restricted to personnel working only within the Office of Information and Privacy that have a need-to know and are accessed with a common access card (CAC).
Records of requests that are granted are destroyed two years after the date of reply. Records of requests that are denied in whole or part, no records responses, responses to requesters who do not adequately describe records being sought, or do not state a willingness to pay fees, and records which are appealed or litigated are destroyed six years after final action.
NGB/OIP Office of the Chief Counsel, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington Hall 2, Arlington, VA 22204-1373.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to NGB/OIP Office of the Chief Counsel, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington Hall 2, Arlington, VA 22204-1373.
Written requests must include a signed declaration and include the first and last name of the individual, the timeframe for which records are being requested and FOIA/PA Case number if possible, and a full mailing address in order to receive a response.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to NGB/OIP Office of the Chief Counsel, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington Hall 2, Arlington, VA 22204-1373.
Written requests must include a signed declaration and include the first and last name of the individual, the timeframe for which records are being requested and FOIA/PA Case number if possible, and a full mailing address in order to receive a response.
The NGB rules for accessing records and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published at 32 CFR Part 329 or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals who submit initial requests and administrative appeals pursuant to the FOIA; the agency records searched in the process of responding to such requests and appeals; DoD personnel assigned to handle such requests and appeals; other agencies or entities that have referred to the NGB requests concerning National Guard records or that have consulted with the NGB regarding the handling of particular requests; submitters of records; and information from those that have provided assistance to the NGB in making FOIA and PA access determinations.
During the course of a FOIA or PA action, exempt materials from other systems of records may, in turn, become part of the case records in this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those other systems of records are entered into this FOIA or PA case record, the NGB hereby claims the same exemptions for the records from those other systems that are entered into this system, as claimed for the original primary systems of records which they are a part.
An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c), and (e) and published in 32 CFR part 329. For additional information contact the system manager.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.250J.
This program also supports an important White House initiative issued in a Presidential Memorandum on Job-Driven Training for Workers on January 30, 2014.
This priority is:
In making new awards under this program, we give priority to applications for the continuation of programs that have been funded under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Projects for American Indians with Disabilities program.
29 U.S.C. 741.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Eligibility for funding under the grant is contingent upon a grantee's continuing eligibility under the program regulations. As described in section III of this notice, these regulations may be amended during the project period for these grants. On an annual basis and as part of our process for making continuation awards under 34 CFR 75.253, the Department will review current grants and determine whether each grantee continues to meet the applicable eligibility requirements.
1.
On May 9, 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, “Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes,” GAO-12-348 (available at
The Department agreed to comply with GAO's recommendation that the Secretary review the eligibility requirements for AIVRS grants and take appropriate action on grants made to tribes that do not have Federal or State reservations.
For FYs 2012 and 2013, the Department decided not to conduct competitions for new awards under the AIVRS program while it was studying this issue. It extended any grants that were expiring at the end of FYs 2012 and 2013 and waived the regulatory prohibition on cost extensions so that these grantees could continue to receive grant funds while the Department was conducting its review. (77 FR 59085 (September 26, 2012); 78 FR 57066 (September 17, 2013))
On June 23, 2014, the Department published in the
Given the time needed to fully consider all comments to the NPRM in concert with comments received through tribal consultation, and before a final determination on the definition of “reservation” is reached, the Department decided that it is in the best interests of the program, its grantees, and the American Indians with
Eligibility for funding under the grant beyond the initial year is contingent upon a grantee's continuing eligibility under the program regulations, as the regulations may be amended. On an annual basis and, as part of our process for making continuation awards under 34 CFR 75.253, the Department will review current grants and determine whether each grantee continues to meet the applicable eligibility requirements.
2.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.250J.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the team listed under
2.
Each application must describe how the Special Application Requirements stated at 34 CFR 371.21 will be met, including evidence that the applicant has or will obtain a formal cooperative agreement with the appropriate State VR agency or agencies that include strategies for collaboration and coordination of service provision.
3.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 2, 2014.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an
7.
Applications for grants under the AIVRS program, CFDA number 84.250J, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under
You may access the electronic grant application for the AIVRS program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: August Martin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5049, Washington, DC 20202-2800. FAX: (202) 245-7592.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.250J) LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.250J) 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
In addition, the AIVRS APR Form requests data necessary to assess the AIVRS program's performance on supplemental measures that are comparable to the job training and employment common measures that were developed by the Office of Management and Budget in coordination with Federal agencies with job training programs. Each grantee is required to collect and report data for these supplemental measures as part of the annual performance report requirement, including information on: (1) The number of individuals who, during this reporting period, were still employed three months after achieving an employment outcome, (2) the number of individuals who, during this reporting period, were still employed six months after achieving an employment outcome, (3) the average weekly earnings at entry, and (4) the average weekly earnings of the individuals whose employment outcomes resulted in earnings.
For purposes of this section, the term “employment outcome” has the meaning provided in 34 CFR 369.4.
5.
August Martin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5049, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7410 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Services (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Education.
Notice of Open Teleconference Meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming open teleconference meeting of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. This notice also describes the functions of the Advisory Committee. Notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This document is intended to notify the general public of their opportunity to attend.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014, beginning at 2:00 p.m. and ending at approximately 2:30 p.m. (EDT).
Office of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Capitol Place, 80 F Street NW., Suite 412, Washington DC 20202-7582.
Dr. William J. Goggin, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Capitol Place, 80 F Street NW., Suite 413, Washington DC 20202-7582, (202) 219-2099.
The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance is established under Section 491 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended by Public Law 100-50 (20 U.S.C. 1098). The Advisory Committee serves as an independent source of advice and counsel to the Congress and the Secretary of Education on student financial aid policy. Since its inception, the congressional mandate requires the Advisory Committee to conduct objective, nonpartisan, and independent analyses on important aspects of the student assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. In addition, Congress expanded the Advisory Committee's mission in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 to include several important areas: Access, Title IV modernization, early information and needs assessment and review and analysis of regulations.
The Advisory Committee has scheduled this teleconference for the sole purpose of electing an ACSFA member to serve as chair and a member to serve as vice-chair for one year beginning October 1, 2014.
Space at the F Street meeting site and listen only, dial-in line for the teleconference is limited, and you are encouraged to register early if you plan to attend. You may register by sending an email to the following email address:
Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the teleconference meeting (i.e., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, and/or materials in alternative format) should notify the Advisory Committee no later than Wednesday, August 13, 2014 by contacting Ms. Tracy Jones at (202) 219-2099 or via email at
Records are kept for Advisory Committee proceedings, and are available for inspection at the Office of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Capitol Place, 80 F Street NW., Suite 413, Washington, DC, from the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Information regarding the Advisory Committee is available on the Committee's Web site,
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application), filed on November 26, 2013, by Waller LNG Services, LLC (d/b/a Waller Point LNG) (Waller Point), requesting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) produced from domestic sources in a volume up to 1.5 million metric tons per year (mtpa), which Waller Point states is equivalent to approximately 70 billion cubic feet per year (Bcf/yr) of natural gas, or 0.19 Bcf per day (Bcf/d).
Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, September 15, 2014.
According to Waller Point, the proposed Terminal will consist of liquefaction units capable of producing LNG up to a total export capacity of 2.75 mtpa, of which up to 1.5 mpta of LNG (the equivalent of approximately 70 Bcf/yr of natural gas) will be exported to non-FTA countries if the authorization subject to this Notice is granted. The Terminal also will consist of: (i) Berthing and accommodations for multiple LNG vessels, as well as unloading facilities and other features; (ii) a LNG storage facility having storage capacity up to 60,000 cubic meters; and (iii) associated utilities, infrastructure, and support systems.
Waller Point states that, once the Terminal facilities are constructed and operational, the Terminal will receive natural gas by pipeline. The Terminal will be capable of natural gas treatment, liquefaction, and export by direct transfer into off-taking LNG barges or by transfer from the Terminal's storage tanks into off-taking LNG barges berthed along the marine facilities in the Calcasieu Ship Channel.
Waller Point requests long-term, multi-contract authorization to export LNG in a volume equivalent to approximately 70 Bcf/yr of domestic natural gas (0.19 Bcf/d) from the proposed Waller Point LNG Terminal to any non-FTA country which has developed or in the future develops the capacity to import LNG, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy. Waller Point requests this authorization for a 25-year term commencing on the earlier of the date of first export or five years from the date the requested authorization is granted.
Waller Point states that it seeks to export the requested LNG on its own behalf and as agent for others. Waller Point states that it will comply with all DOE/FE requirements for exporters and agents as set forth in recent DOE/FE orders, including registering each LNG title holder for whom Waller Point seeks to export as agent. Waller Point proposes that this registration include a written statement by the title holder acknowledging and agreeing to comply with all applicable requirements included by DOE/FE in Waller Point's export authorization, and to include those requirements in any subsequent purchase or sale agreement entered into by the title holder. In addition, Waller Point states that it will file under seal with DOE any relevant long-term commercial agreements between Waller Point and the LNG title holder, once those agreements have been executed.
Waller Point further states that it has not yet executed any long-term agreements or long-term export contracts, but is engaged in commercial discussions with foreign off-takers to obtain all of the available liquefaction capacity at the Waller Point LNG Terminal. Citing DOE/FE precedent, Walker Point states that applicants are not required to submit transaction-specific information with their applications, but may submit such information when the contracts reflecting such information are executed. Waller Point states that DOE/FE has previously found that this commitment conforms to the requirements of 10 CFR 590.202(b), which calls upon applicants to supply transaction specific information “to the extent practicable.”
Waller Point anticipates that either it, Waller Marine (the developer of the Terminal), or individual customers who hold title to natural gas (via a liquefaction tolling agreement) will bear the responsibility for sourcing gas supplies for delivery to the Terminal. Waller Point states that, through Waller Marine, it will commence negotiations with certain natural gas suppliers for transportation capacity and the required lateral pipeline to be constructed, once commercial discussions between those suppliers and Waller Point progress.
Waller Point proposes to source natural gas to be used as feedstock for LNG production from the interstate and intrastate grid, at points of interconnection with other pipelines and points of liquidity both upstream and downstream of the pipeline. Waller Point anticipates that the Terminal will be connected to multiple interstate and Louisiana intrastate pipelines, which will enable it to purchase natural gas from conventional and unconventional basins across the region, state, and from virtually anywhere in the nation. Waller Point states that the gas supply can be sourced in requisite volumes in the spot market or pursued under long-term arrangements.
Waller Point contends that the proposed exports from the Waller Point LNG Terminal to non-FTA countries are consistent with the public interest under section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a). Waller Point states that it is seeking to export relatively small volumes of LNG, particularly when compared to similar non-FTA export applications recently approved and pending before DOE/FE. Waller Point states that the export of smaller volumes of LNG has become economically and technically feasible in recent years due to: (i) The increasing domestic supply of natural gas, and (ii) the development of Waller Marine's patent-pending articulated tug and barge LNG regasification vessel arrangement. Waller Point asserts that the export of these smaller volumes of natural gas, including its proposed exports, will not have a significant impact on domestic supply, and will fulfill a need that is not otherwise being met in the domestic or international marketplace.
In support of its Application, Waller Point addresses: (i) The domestic need for the LNG to be exported, (ii) the impact on domestic natural gas market prices, and (iii) the economic and environmental benefits associated with its proposed exports. Waller Point asserts that the proposed exports will not cause a significant increase in domestic natural gas prices, will create more domestic employment opportunities, and will advance the development of LNG infrastructure needed for the United States to fully realize the use of LNG as a domestic transportation fuel in striving to achieve energy independence. For these reasons,
Focusing on domestic need for the LNG, Waller Point states that recoverable reserves of natural gas in the United States are economical and plentiful enough to meet demand for both domestic consumption and long-term export from the Waller Point LNG Terminal. According to Waller Point, technological advancements in natural gas exploration and production have allowed for the continued development of previously undiscovered domestic shale gas reserves. Waller Point asserts that there has been a consistent trend of upward re-adjustment of U.S. recoverable natural gas reserves. Citing data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Waller Point states that the EIA estimates 2,203 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable gas in the United States—a figure that it states far exceeds the volume of anticipated exports. For these and other reasons, Waller Point asserts that its proposed exports will not materially impact the availability of natural gas supply from a regional and national perspective, nor will the exports be needed to meet demand in the United States.
Additional details can be found in Waller Point's Application, which is posted on the DOE/FE Web site at:
Waller Point states that any construction or modifications to the Waller Point LNG Terminal resulting from or in connection with the Application would be subject to approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Following the issuance of this requested authorization, Waller Point states that it will initiate the pre-filing review process at FERC for the proposed Terminal, consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), and DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant, these issues will include the domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, the adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, U.S. energy security, and the cumulative impact of the requested authorization and any other LNG export application(s) previously approved on domestic natural gas supply and demand fundamentals. DOE may also consider other factors bearing on the public interest, including the impact of the proposed exports on the U.S. economy (including GDP, consumers, and industry), job creation, the U.S. balance of trade, and international considerations; and whether the authorization is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Parties that may oppose this Application should address these issues in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.
NEPA requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its environmental responsibilities.
Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicant, interested persons will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, or motions for additional procedures.
In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to
A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. A party seeking intervention may request that additional procedures be provided, such as additional written comments, an oral presentation, a conference, or trial-type hearing. Any request to file additional written comments should explain why they are necessary. Any request for an oral presentation should identify the substantial question of fact, law, or policy at issue, show that it is material and relevant to a decision in the proceeding, and demonstrate why an oral presentation is needed. Any request for a conference should demonstrate why the conference would materially advance the proceeding. Any request for a trial-type hearing must show that there are factual issues genuinely in dispute that are relevant and material to a decision, and that a trial-type hearing is necessary for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.
The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Division of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Availability of Draft NPDES General Permits MAG07000 and NHG07000.
The Director of the Office of Ecosystem Protection, EPA-New England, is providing a notice of availability of draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permits for dewatering activity discharges to certain waters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of New Hampshire. These General Permits replace the Dewatering General Permits, which expired on September 30, 2013.
Comment on the draft general permits must be received on or before August 18, 2014.
Comments on the draft general permits shall be submitted by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
The draft permit is based on an administrative record available for public review at EPA—Region 1, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying requests. The facts sheet for the draft general permit sets forth principal facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological and policy questions considered in the development of the draft permit and is available upon request. A brief summary is provided as
Additional information concerning the draft General Permits may be obtained between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, from Victor Alvarez, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; telephone: 617-918-1572; email:
EPA is proposing to reissue two draft general permits for the discharge of uncontaminated water from construction dewatering intrusion and/or stormwater accumulation from sites that disturb less than one acre of land and short and long term dewatering of foundation sumps. While the draft general permits are two distinct permits, for convenience, EPA has grouped them together in a single document and has provided a single fact sheet for the two draft general permits. This document refers to the draft general “permit” in the singular. The draft general permit, appendices and fact sheet are available at:
The draft General Permit establishes Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements, effluent limitations, standards, prohibitions, and management practices for facilities with construction dewatering of groundwater intrusion and/or storm water accumulation from sites less than one acre and short-term and long-term dewatering of foundation sumps. The draft permit includes effluent limitations based on best professional judgment (BPJ) and water quality considerations. When EPA has not promulgated effluent limitations for a category of discharges, or if an operator discharges a pollutant not covered by an effluent limitation guideline, effluent limitations may be based on the BPJ of the agency or permit writer. The BPJ limits in the general permit are in the form of non-numeric control measures, commonly referred to as best management practices (BMPs). The effluent limits established in the draft permit assures that the surface water quality standards of the receiving water are protected, maintained and/or attained. Discharges that contain pollutants in quantities which represent reasonable potential to cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards will not be granted coverage under this general permit. Those dischargers must either apply for an individual permit or seek coverage under EPA's Remediation General Permit.
The provisions related to the ESA have be updated from the 2008 general permit and new species of concern have been added. EPA has requested concurrence from the appropriate federal services (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service) in connection with this draft permit.
This action is being taken under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:17 a.m. on Tuesday, July 15, 2014, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Jeremiah O. Norton (Appointive), concurred in by Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency), Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of
The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 11, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for a new collection. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public on this ICR during the review and approval period.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before August 18, 2014.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
In fiscal year 2013, Congress appropriated approximately $296.8
Sixty percent of the clients seen at Title X funded service sites self-identify as being uninsured. Seventy percent of the total clients are under the age 30. Thus Title X service sites see a large proportion of young and uninsured individuals. Over the past years, OPA has encouraged grantees to develop enrollment programs to ensure that clients who are currently uninsured understand new health insurance options that are available as a result of the ACA. Some sites already assist individuals with enrolling in Medicaid and other public insurance programs. With the availability of the health insurance marketplace, many more service delivery sites are assisting clients enroll in health insurance programs.
OPA does not have any data on how many sites are assisting and enrolling clients into health insurance programs. Thus we seek to collect this data in order to understand the impact of Title X funded service sites on assisting and enrolling clients into insurance programs. We will utilize this information to guide strategic planning around how Title X service sites and prepare for, and assist with, the full implementation of the ACA. Through a separate data collection process called the Family Planning Annual Report (FPAR) (OMB No. 0990-0221, expiration January 31, 2016), OPA collects information on the insurance status of the clients served. With the implementation of the ACA, many of the traditional clients served by Title X service sites will qualify for health insurance.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public 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. To request more information on the below proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or send comments to Leroy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. 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 of the proposed collection of information; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Youth@Work—Talking Safety Curriculum Dissemination Project: Incentives for adoption among public school districts—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health
Given the disproportionate number of workplace injuries and illnesses suffered by young workers, occupational safety education is a critical and urgent concern [Chin et al. 2010]. Although the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 regulates that employers have the primary responsibility for providing a safe and healthy workplace, future working generations should be equipped with a foundation of workplace safety and health knowledge and skills. A mastery of general occupational safety and health competencies that protect workers from injury or illness are key to any work-readiness effort and to every job. NIOSH has developed fundamental workplace safety and health competencies that apply to all workplaces [NIOSH 2013; Schulte et al. 2014]. The eight core workplace safety and health competencies are general transferable skills that can apply across all industries. They can be used with the job-specific skills that workers gain through apprenticeship and career technical or vocational training programs. These core competencies/skills can be used to improve the health and safety of individuals in other places as well, such as in homes, schools, or communities.
The purpose of this study is, therefore, to conduct key informant interviews with a limited number of assistant superintendents and/or curriculum coordinators in school districts across the country to assess their openness to incorporating workplace safety and health skills for young workers into their programs as a vital component of their curricula in both academic and vocational education programs at the middle and high school level. The information will inform NIOSH on incentives barriers for the inclusion of work place safety and health competencies as the “missing life skill” in the curricula and programs of U.S. middle schools and high schools. Providing youth with foundational workplace health and safety skills enables young workers to better protect themselves and others and to contribute to safe and healthy working conditions.
For this project, twenty-eight (28) key informant interviews will be conducted. They will consist of seven (7) respondents from each of the four (4) regions of the United States (Northeast, Midwest, West, South) as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. In each region, a sample of districts will be selected based on jurisdictional density, as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The participants for this data collection will be recruited with the assistance of a contractor who has successfully performed similar tasks for NIOSH in the past. The sample size is based on recommendations related to qualitative interview methods and the research team's prior experience. The interview discussion guide will be administered verbally by phone to participants in English. Once this study is complete, results will be made available via various means including print publications and the agency internet site. The information gathered by this project will inform NIOSH of the receptivity and barriers faced by these school districts for incorporating workplace safety and health competencies for young workers as a vital component of their curricula within academic and vocational education programs at the middle and high school level. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
The total estimated annual burden hours are 14.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public 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. To request more information on the below proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or send comments to Leroy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. Comments are invited on: (a)
Monitoring and Reporting System for the Division of Community Health's Cooperative Agreement Programs—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established the Division of Community Health (DCH) to support multi-sectorial, community-based programs that promote healthy living. In 2014, DCH announced three new cooperative agreement programs authorized by the Public Health Service Act and the Prevention and Public Health Fund of the Affordable Care Act (Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) DP14-1417, FOA DP14-1418, and FOA DP14-1419PPHF14). The new programs are designed to address chronic diseases and risk factors for chronic diseases, including physical inactivity, poor diet, obesity, and tobacco use. The programs will provide support for implementation of broad, evidence- and practice-based policy and environmental improvements in large and small cities, urban rural areas, tribes, multi-sectorial community coalitions, and racial and ethnic communities experiencing chronic disease disparities. DCH programs align with the
Awards under the new FOAs will be announced in the Fall of 2014. Awardees are expected to include a mix of approximately 57 state, local, and tribal government entities, and approximately 51 private sector entities including national organizations. CDC will seek OMB approval to collect information from these awardees.
Information collection will be conducted primarily via an electronic management information system (MIS) which will enable the accurate, reliable, uniform and timely submission to CDC of each awardee's work plans and progress reports, including objectives and milestones. The electronic MIS will also generate a variety of routine and customizable reports. Local level reports will allow each awardee to summarize its activities and progress towards meeting work plan objectives. CDC will use the information collected in the MIS to monitor each awardee's progress and to identify its strengths and weaknesses. Monitoring allows CDC to determine whether an awardee is meeting performance goals and to make adjustments in the type and level of technical assistance provided to them to support attainment of their objectives. CDC's monitoring and evaluation activities also allow CDC to provide oversight of the use of federal funds, and to identify and disseminate information about successful prevention and control strategies implemented by awardees. Finally, the information collection will allow CDC to monitor the increased emphasis on partnerships and programmatic collaboration, and is expected to reduce duplication of effort, enhance program impact and maximize the use of federal funds. The estimated burden of initial population of the MIS is 15 hours per awardee. Thereafter, the estimated burden of producing each semi-annual report is 3 hours.
Due to substantial interest in the new DCH programs from a variety of stakeholders, CDC may also seek OMB approval to conduct targeted, special-purpose information collections on an as-needed basis. CDC estimates that each DCH awardee could be asked to participate in one special purpose information collection per year. Methods for these data collections could include telephone interviews, in-person interviews, Web-based surveys, or paper-and-pencil surveys. Each special-purpose information collection request will be submitted to OMB for approval through the Change Request mechanism, and will include the data collection instrument(s) and a description of purpose and methods.
OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation in semi-annual progress reporting is required for cooperative agreement awardees, but could be voluntary for some special-purpose data collections. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Virtual Reality to Train and Assess Emergency Responders—Revision—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
NIOSH, under Public Law 91-173 as amended by Public Law 95-164 (Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977), and Public Law 109-236 (Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006) has the responsibility to conduct research to improve working conditions and to prevent accidents and occupational diseases in underground coal and metal/nonmetal mines in the U.S.
The turn of the 21st century started with much promise for the coal mining industry. Because there was only one underground disaster in the 1990s, it seemed that emergency response in the United States no longer needed to be a top research priority. However, major coal mine disasters between 2001 and 2010 have resulted in 65 fatalities. These events highlighted the critical need to balance investments to reduce low probability/high severity events with those that focus on frequent, but less severe injuries and illnesses.
The present research project seeks to determine optimal use of virtual reality (VR) technologies for training and assessing mine emergency responders using the Mine Rescue and Escape Training Laboratory (MRET Lab). Responders include specially trained individuals, such as mine rescue or fire brigade team members, and also managers and miners who may either be called upon to respond to an emergency situation or engage in self-protective actions in response to an emergency. This project is a step toward determining how new immersive virtual reality technologies should be used for miner training and testing in the U.S.
As stated previously in the original information collection request justification, research activities involving rank-and-file underground coal miners who participate in the mine escape training may occur at either the MRET Lab or in an off-site classroom or other typical instructional setting either at an above-ground mine safety training facility, mine administration building, or a university or academic environment (hereinto referenced as the “classroom setting”). Having these two subsamples allows us to better assess uses for VR training applications, determine the potential additive value of training provided in the MRET Lab, and the potential benefits of adapting simulation-based mine emergency training to a broader audience. To accommodate an appropriate amount of mine escape participants for both the MRET Lab modules and classroom settings, we are requesting adding 60 more participants to our 150 participant data collection cap, which would ideally leave us with 30 BG4 participants, 60 mine rescue participants (MRET Lab), 60 mine escape participants (MRET Lab), and 60 mine escape participants (classroom setting), for a new grand total of 210 participants.
The project objective will be achieved through specific aims in two related areas as illustrated below.
Training assessment:
1. Evaluate four training modules
2. Evaluate participant reactions
3. Develop guidelines
Training development:
4. Use 3D technologies to develop a prototype for a mine rescue closed-circuit breathing apparatus (e.g., Dräger BG4).
To accomplish these goals over the life of the project, researchers will utilize a variety of data collection strategies, including self-report pre- and post-test instruments for assessing trainee reaction and measuring learning. Data collection will take place with approximately 210 underground coal miners over three years. The respondents targeted for this study include rank-and-file miners, mine rescue team members, and mine safety and health professionals. All participants will be between the ages of 18 and 65, currently employed, and living in the United States. Findings will be used to improve the safety and health of underground coal miners by assessing the efficacy of immersive VR environments for teaching critical mine safety and health skills.
To assess learning as a result of training, each participant will complete a pre-training questionnaire, a post-simulation questionnaire, and a post-training questionnaire. Participants evaluating the closed-circuit breathing apparatus training will only complete a version of the pre-training questionnaire. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total estimated burden hours are 47.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
The National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) (0920-0607, Expiration 12/31/2015)—Revision—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Violence is an important public health problem. In the United States, suicide and homicide are the second and third leading causes of death, respectively, in the 1-34 year old age group. Unfortunately, public health agencies do not know much more about the problem than the numbers and the sex, race, and age of the victims, or information obtainable from the standard death certificate. Death certificates, however, carry no information about key facts necessary for prevention such as the relationship of the victim and suspect and the circumstances of the deaths. Furthermore, death certificates are typically available 20 months after the completion of a single calendar year. Official publications of national violent death rates (i.e., those in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) rarely use data that are less than two years old.
Local and Federal criminal justice agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provide slightly more information about homicides, but they do not routinely collect standardized data about suicides, which are in fact much more common than homicides. The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Report (SHRs) does collect basic information about the victim-suspect relationship and circumstances related to the homicide. SHRs, do not link violent deaths that are part of one incident such as homicide-suicides. It also is a voluntary system in which some 10-20 percent of police departments nationwide do not participate. The FBI's National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) provides slightly more information than SHRs, but it covers less of the country than SHRs. NIBRS also only provides data regarding homicides. Also, the Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports does not use data that are less than two years old.
CDC requests OMB approval in order to revise its state-based surveillance system for violent deaths to provide coverage across all U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia. The surveillance system captures case record information held by medical examiners/coroners, vital statistics (i.e., death certificates), and law enforcement, including crime labs. Data is collected by each state in the system and entered
The president has submitted plans to fund the expansion of the state-based surveillance system to collect information in all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. This revision will allow 32 new state health departments, the health department of the District of Columbia, and 7 territorial governments to be added to the currently funded 18 state health departments, resulting in a total of 58 public health agencies, which include the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and territories to be included in the state-based surveillance system. Violent deaths include all homicides, suicides, legal interventions, deaths from undetermined causes, and unintentional firearm deaths. The average state will experience approximately 1,000 such deaths each year.
In the past, abstractors' time was included as burden as they were not compensated to abstract data from death certificates. Moving forward, we will no longer include state abstractors' time spent abstracting data in our estimates of public burden for NVDRS because state abstractors are funded by CDC to do this work. This significantly reduces the estimated public burden associated with NVDRS.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 29,000.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of public meeting.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and National Institutes of Health (NIH), all located within the Department of Health and Human Services, in collaboration with partner agencies, announce a public meeting concerning antimicrobial resistance. CDC, FDA, and NIH serve as Co-Chairs to the Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (ITFAR). The purpose of the meeting is to communicate the strategic direction of ITFAR in the fight against antimicrobial resistance, centering on current work and future direction in this area.
The public meeting will be held at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, DC, on Thursday, September 4, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The public meeting will be held at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Horizon Ballroom, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004; Telephone: 202-312-1300.
Participants should be aware that the meeting location is a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. Please see Building and Security Guidelines for information on security requirements. Additional visitor information is available at
Stephanie Gumbis, Office of Antimicrobial Resistance, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop A-28, Atlanta, GA 30329; Telephone 404-639-4000; Email
The Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (ITFAR) was created in 1999 in recognition of the increasing importance of antimicrobial resistance (AR) as a public health threat. The ITFAR coordinates the activities of federal agencies in addressing antimicrobial resistance and is co-chaired by HHS/CDC, HHS/FDA, and HHS/NIH. Other HHS Task Force members include the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (HHS/ASPR) and the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health (HHS/OASH). Non-HHS Task Force members include the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In 2001, the ITFAR developed an initial action plan to combat AR. This plan, titled “A Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance,” outlined specific goals, actions, and implementation steps important for addressing the problem of
The public meeting process provides an opportunity for the public to comment on the activities of the ITFAR to date. The agenda will consist of welcome and introductory comments followed by sessions centering on specific topics in each of the three focus areas of the Action Plan: Surveillance, Prevention and Control of Antimicrobial Resistance; Research; and Regulatory Pathways to Promote Product Development. Each session will include presentations by the ITFAR members on the strategic direction of government agencies for that Focus Area followed by brief presentations from invited partner organizations. The session will end with a moderated question and answer session with the audience. The meeting will then be open for comments from the general public. The agenda is subject to change without notice.
Comments and suggestions from the public on the ITFAR or any of the focus areas of the Action Plan will be reviewed and carefully considered by the ITFAR. The public should be aware that this meeting agenda does not include development of consensus positions, guidelines, interrogatories, or discussions or endorsement of specific commercial products.
Participants are asked to preregister to ensure sufficient space. Seating capacity is limited to 200 persons. To register, please send an electronic mail message to
The meeting is being held in a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. In planning your arrival, please take into account the need to clear security. All visitors entering the Ronald Reagan Building must procede as directed through security checkpoints and present government-issued photo identification (e.g., a valid Federal identification badge, state driver's license, state non-driver's license, or passport). All visitors entering the building must pass through a metal detector. All items brought to Ronald Reagan Building may be subject to inspection.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by September 15, 2014.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate and other forms of information technology.
In order to conduct educational and public information programs relating to tobacco use as authorized by section 1003(d)(2)(D) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(D)), FDA's Center for Tobacco Products will create and use a variety of media to inform and educate the public, tobacco retailers, and health professionals about the risks of tobacco use, how to quit using tobacco products, and FDA's role in regulating tobacco.
To ensure that such health communication messages have the highest potential to be received, understood, and are accepted by those for whom they are intended, FDA's Center for Tobacco Products will conduct research and studies relating to the control and prevention of disease. In conducting such research, FDA will employ formative pretests. Formative pretests are conducted on a small scale, and their focus is on developing and assessing the likely effectiveness of communications with specific target audiences. This type of research involves (1) assessing audience knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and other characteristics for the purpose of determining the need for and developing health messages, communication strategies, and public information programs; and (2) pretesting these health messages, strategies, and program components while they are in developmental form to assess audience comprehension, reactions, and perceptions.
Formative pretesting is a staple of best practices in communications research. Obtaining feedback from intended audiences during the development of messages and materials is crucial for the success of every communication program. The purpose of obtaining information from formative pretesting is that it allows FDA to improve materials and strategies while revisions are still affordable and possible. Formative pretesting can also avoid potentially expensive and dangerous unintended outcomes caused by audiences' interpreting messages in a way that was not intended by the drafters. By maximizing the effectiveness of messages and strategies for reaching targeted audiences, the frequency with which tobacco communication messages need to be modified should be greatly reduced.
The information collected will serve the primary purpose of providing FDA information about the perceived effectiveness of messages, advertisements, and materials in reaching and successfully communicating with their intended audiences. Quantitative testing messages and other materials with a sample of the target audience will allow FDA to refine messages, advertisements, and materials, including questionnaires or images, directed at consumers while they are still in the developmental stage.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The number of respondents to be included in each new survey will vary, depending on the nature of the material or message being tested and the target audience.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Karen Strambler at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), Office of Science is announcing an invitation for participation in its Site Tours Program. This program is intended to give CTP staff an opportunity to visit facilities involved in the growing, processing, or manufacturing of tobacco or currently regulated tobacco products (i.e., cigarettes, roll-your-own, and smokeless tobacco). These visits are intended to provide CTP staff with the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the tobacco industry and its operations and are not intended as regulatory inspections or facility visits for the purposes of developing Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practice regulations. The purpose of this notice is to alert parties interested in participating in the Site Tours Program to submit requests to CTP.
Interested parties should submit either an electronic or written request for participation by September 15, 2014. The request should include a description of your facility, including as applicable, a list of all tobacco products processed and/or manufactured there. Please specify the physical address(es) of the site(s) for which you are submitting a request along with a proposed 1-day tour agenda.
If your facility is interested in offering a site visit, you should submit a request to participate in the program either electronically to
Carolyn Dresler, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4067,
On June 22, 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-31) was signed into law, amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) and giving FDA authority to regulate tobacco product manufacturing, distribution, and marketing.
CTP's Office of Science is continuing the Site Tours Program to provide its scientific and regulatory staff the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the tobacco industry and its operations, including tobacco product manufacturing and aspects of tobacco growing, processing, and storage that may affect the physical and chemical properties of tobacco. Although FDA generally does not regulate tobacco farms and tobacco warehouses, the Agency believes that gaining a better understanding of the operations performed at these facilities may be helpful. The goals of the Site Tours Program are to: (1) Provide CTP firsthand exposure to industry's manufacturing processes; (2) learn about control measures used by tobacco product manufacturers to ensure product consistency; (3) understand the processing of different forms of tobacco and the manufacturing processes used for various types of tobacco products and their influences on product constituents; and (4) understand how growing conditions, curing, storage, and manufacturing processes might influence the levels of tobacco or tobacco smoke constituents.
In the Site Tours Program, small groups of CTP staff plan to observe the operations of tobacco growers, tobacco warehouses, and tobacco product manufacturing facilities of cigarettes, roll-your-own, and smokeless tobacco companies, including the manufacturing of paper, filters, and pouch materials. Please note that the Site Tours Program is not intended to include official FDA inspections of facilities to determine compliance with the FD&C Act or for the purposes of developing Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practice regulations; rather, the program is meant to educate CTP staff and improve their understanding of the tobacco industry and its operations.
CTP plans to select one or more of each of the following types of facilities: A large cigarette manufacturing facility, a small cigarette manufacturing facility, a smokeless manufacturing facility, a burley tobacco farm, a flue-cured tobacco farm, a tobacco rolling paper facility, a tobacco warehouse and a tobacco processing facility. All travel expenses associated with the site tours
Requests are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Requests received by the Agency are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of 7 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for prescription drug products containing more than 325 milligrams (mg) of acetaminophen. The holders of these ANDAs have waived their opportunity for a hearing.
Effective July 17, 2014.
Rachel Turow, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5094.
In the
FDA did not receive a request for withdrawal of approval of an application containing more than 325 mg of acetaminophen per dosage unit from one sponsor. In addition, FDA received requests for withdrawal of approval of five applications for products containing more than 325 mg of acetaminophen per dosage unit for which sponsors either submitted requests under § 314.150(c) or failed to cite a relevant regulatory provision. FDA contacted all of these sponsors on multiple occasions to ask that they submit a request that FDA withdraw approval of their applications under § 314.150(d), but they failed to respond.
With respect to the application for which FDA received no request for withdrawal, FDA initiated proceedings under § 314.150(a) and (b) to withdraw approval. With respect to the requests for withdrawal of approval submitted under § 314.150(c), the Agency notes that because FDA has made a determination under § 314.150(a) that approval of these applications should be withdrawn for reasons of safety, application holders may not withdraw their applications under § 314.150(c). The text of § 314.150(c) expressly precludes withdrawal of an application under the subsection if FDA has made a safety determination under § 314.150(a). Similarly, when a request for withdrawal is made without a citation to any regulation, FDA does not consider it to be appropriately notified that an application holder has voluntarily waived the opportunity for a hearing. Accordingly, FDA decided to proceed with withdrawal of approval of applications for which sponsors either submitted requests under § 314.150(c) or failed to cite a relevant regulatory provision under the withdrawal procedures outlined in § 314.150 (a) and (b).
Thus, in a notice published in the
The ANDAs listed in table 1, other than ANDA 040148, were the subject of the March 27, 2014,
In addition, table 1 includes ANDA 040148 for which the ANDA holder submitted a timely voluntary request for withdrawal under 314.150(d) and waived its opportunity for a hearing. However, ANDA 040148 was erroneously omitted from the March 27, 2014,
With respect to the ANDAs listed in table 1 (with the exception of ANDA 040148), for the reasons discussed in the January 14, 2011, and March 27, 2014, notices, the Director of CDER, under section 505(e)(2) of the FD&C Act and under authority delegated to her by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner), finds that new evidence of clinical experience, not contained in the applications listed in table 1 and not available at the time the applications were approved, shows that prescription drugs containing more than 325 mg of acetaminophen per dosage unit are not safe for use under the conditions of use that formed the basis upon which the applications were approved (21 U.S.C. 355(e)(2)). Therefore, approval of the applications for the drug products listed in table 1 of this document (with the exception of ANDA 040148), and all amendments and supplements thereto, is withdrawn (see
With respect to ANDA 040148 listed in table 1, under § 314.150(d), and under authority delegated to the Director of CDER by the Commissioner, approval of ANDA 040148 and all amendments and supplements thereto, is withdrawn (see
The safety issue discussed in this document and the March 27, 2014, and January 14, 2011,
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404, that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to Bluebird Bio to practice the inventions embodied in US Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 61/622,600, entitled “Chimeric Antigen Receptors Targeting B-cell Maturation Antigen” [HHS Ref. E-040-2012/0-US-01], and International (PCT) Application No. PCT/US13/32029, entitled “Chimeric Antigen Receptors Targeting B-cell Maturation Antigen” [HHS Ref. E-040-2012/0-PCT-02], and all continuing applications and foreign counterparts. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide, and the field of use may be limited to:
Use of the Patent Rights to make and have made, to sell, to offer for sale, to import, and to use in humans, human autologous peripheral blood T-cells modified by recombinant human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”)-based lentiviral vectors or murine leukemia virus (“MLV”)-based gamma-retroviral vectors to express chimeric antigen receptors that recognize B-cell Maturation Antigen (“BCMA”) for the treatment or prevention of cancer and autoimmune diseases.
Only written comments or applications for a license (or both) which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before August 18, 2014 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: Patrick McCue, Ph.D., Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 435-4632; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; Email:
These inventions concern a series of chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) that specifically target BCMA, a protein that is highly expressed on the surface of
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 within thirty (30) days from the date of this published notice.
Applications for a license in the field of use that are filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
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.
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 amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings 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.
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.
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 a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
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.
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.
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:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Biomedical Communications, December 2, 2014, 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Board Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Biomedical Communications, will be held on December 16, 2014 instead of December 2, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. and will end at 3:00 p.m. The meeting is partially closed to the public.
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 meetings.
The meetings 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 meetings.
The meetings 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 meetings.
The meetings 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 meetings.
The meetings 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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; receipt of permit application.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received, from the Bishop Paiute Tribe (applicant), an application for an enhancement of survival permit for the federally endangered Owens pupfish, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This permit application includes a proposed safe harbor agreement (agreement) between the applicant and the Service. The agreement and permit application are available for public comment.
To ensure we are able to consider your comments, please send them to us by August 18, 2014.
The documents are available on our Web site:
•
•
•
Eric Morrissette, Safe Harbor Coordinator, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the address above or by telephone at (805) 644-1766.
We have received an application for an enhancement of survival permit for the federally endangered Owens pupfish (
You may obtain copies of the documents for review by using one of the methods in
Under a safe harbor agreement, participating landowners voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to benefit species listed under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
We have worked with the applicant to develop this proposed agreement for the conservation of the Owens pupfish on the property subject to the agreement (enrolled property), which is Tribal Trust Land held in trust for the Tribe by the United States and managed by the applicant. The enrolled property is the Bishop Paiute Reservation in Inyo County, California, which occurs within the historic range of the Owens pupfish. Within the 875 acres of land comprising the enrolled property, a pond in the 24.8-acre Conservation Open Space Area contains suitable habitat for the Owens pupfish. The Owens pupfish will be translocated into its suitable habitat at the enrolled property according to a written agreement between the applicant and Service. Under this written agreement, the existing habitat for Owens pupfish will be managed for the species, and additional habitat for the species may be created in the future. We expect that the activities proposed in the agreement will result in the establishment of the Owens pupfish in suitable habitat that will be maintained and remain relatively undisturbed, thus resulting in a net conservation benefit for the species.
The agreement provides for the translocation and establishment of the Owens pupfish at the enrolled property, and the management of its suitable habitat. The proposed duration of the agreement and term of the enhancement of survival permit is 10 years. The agreement fully describes the proposed management activities to be undertaken by the applicant and the net conservation benefits expected to be gained for the Owens pupfish.
Upon approval of this agreement and satisfactory completion of all other applicable legal requirements, and consistent with the Service's Safe Harbor Policy published in the
Management activities included in the agreement will provide for the translocation and establishment of the Owens pupfish and management of its habitat within the enrolled property. The objective of such activities is to establish a self-sustaining population of Owens pupfish within its historic range in the suitable habitat at the enrolled property. Take of Owens pupfish in the form of capture would occur during translocation activities, thereby necessitating take authority under the permit. Take incidental to activities associated with the management of Owens pupfish habitat is unlikely; however, it is possible that in the course of such activities or other lawful activities on the enrolled property, the applicant could incidentally take individuals of Owens pupfish, thereby necessitating take authority under the permit.
Baseline conditions at the enrolled property, as described in the agreement, have been established consisting of two elements, the current area of suitable habitat for Owens pupfish and the elevated presence of a population of Owens pupfish. Under the agreement, an elevated baseline for the population of Owens pupfish means that, in anticipation that translocation and establishment of the Owens pupfish is successful, the population of Owens pupfish would remain at the enrolled property at the end of the agreement term where there currently is no population of Owens pupfish and under other circumstances the baseline for the species presence could be zero. The
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the proposed agreement and permit application are eligible for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Individuals wishing copies of the permit application, copies of our draft Environmental Action Statement, and copies of the agreement, including a map of the proposed permit area, should contact the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
If you wish to comment on the permit application or the agreement, you may submit your comments to one of the addresses listed in the
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.
We will evaluate this permit application, associated documents, and comments we receive to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act and NEPA regulations. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will sign the proposed agreement and issue an enhancement of survival permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act to the applicant for take of the Owens pupfish incidental to otherwise lawful activities in accordance with the terms of the agreement. We will not make our final decision until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all comments we receive during the comment period.
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Act and under implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6).
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 15, 2014.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Erika Gehrmann, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. 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:
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required 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., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of the “Current Population Survey (CPS).” A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the Addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the Addresses section below on or before September 15, 2014.
Send comments to Carol Rowan, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20212. Written comments also may be transmitted by fax to 202-691-5111 (this is not a toll-free number).
Carol Rowan, BLS Clearance Officer, 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See
The CPS has been the principal source of the official Government statistics on employment and unemployment for over 70 years. The labor force information gathered through the survey is of paramount importance in keeping track of the economic health of the Nation. The survey is the only source of monthly data on total employment and unemployment. The Employment Situation news release contains data from this survey and is designated as a Principal Federal Economic Indicator (PFEI). Moreover, the survey also yields data on the characteristics of persons not in the labor force. The CPS data are used monthly, in conjunction with data from other sources, to analyze the extent to which, and with what success, the various components of the American population are participating in the economic life of the Nation.
The labor force data gathered through the CPS are provided to users in the greatest detail possible, in conjunction with the demographic information obtained in the survey. In brief, the labor force data can be broken down by sex, age, race, ethnicity, marital status, family composition, educational level, disability status, and other characteristics. Through such breakdowns, one can focus on the employment situation of specific population groups as well as on general trends in employment and unemployment. Information of this type can be obtained only through demographically oriented surveys such as the CPS.
The basic CPS data also are used as an important platform on which to base the data derived from the various supplemental questions that are administered in conjunction with the survey. By coupling the basic data from the monthly survey with the special data from the supplements, one can get valuable insights on the behavior of American workers and on the social and economic health of their families.
There is wide interest in the monthly CPS data among Government policymakers, legislators, economists, the media, and the general public. While the data from the CPS are used in conjunction with data from other surveys in assessing the economic health of the Nation, they are unique in various ways. Specifically, they are the basis for much of the monthly Employment Situation report, a PFEI. They provide a monthly, nationally representative measure of total employment, including farm work, self-employment, and unpaid family work; other surveys are generally restricted to the nonagricultural wage and salary sector, or provide less timely information. The CPS provides data on all job seekers, and on all persons outside the labor force, while payroll-based surveys cannot, by definition, cover these sectors of the population. Finally, the CPS data on employment, unemployment, and on persons not in the labor force can be linked to the demographic characteristics of the many groups that make up the Nation's population, while the data from most other surveys are devoid of demographic information. Many groups, both in the government and in the private sector, are eager to analyze this wealth of demographic and labor force data.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the Current Population Survey (CPS). A revision of a currently approved collection is needed to provide the Nation with timely information about the labor force status of the population. The CPS questionnaire has been revised to add three questions on certification/licensure and remove three questions on educational attainment to avoid increasing the cost of the CPS and to limit the increase in respondent burden. These proposed changes would be permanent changes to the survey.
Certification/licensure is a topic that aligns closely with the CPS goal of collecting information about factors that impact labor market success, and it is a topic of interest to researchers and policy makers. The three additional questions will identify whether respondents have a currently active professional certification or license; whether any of those credentials were issued by the Federal, State, or local government; and whether the credential is required for an individual's main job.
The three educational attainment items that are proposed for removal were added in 1996 to enable researchers to construct a measure of continuous years of education. (There were seven educational attainment
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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.
• 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 submissions of responses.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Merit Systems Protection Board.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR), “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.).
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 18, 2014.
Written comments may be submitted to William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20419; by fax: (202) 653-7130; or by email:
To request additional information, please contact William D. Spencer, Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20419; phone: (202) 653-7200; fax: (202) 653-7130; or email:
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
MSPB did not receive any comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the
Below we provide MSPB's projected average estimates for the next three years:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning a change of rates for Inbound EMS 2 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission hereby provides notice that on July 11, 2014, the Postal Service filed a Notice, pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5, announcing its intention to change rates for Inbound EMS 2, effective January 1, 2015.
The Postal Service states that Governors' Decision Nos. 08-20 and 11-6 establish prices and classifications for this product and identify subsequent dockets addressing price changes.
The Postal Service filing includes four attachments as follows:
• Attachment 1—an application for non-public treatment of materials filed under seal;
• Attachments 2A and 2B—redacted copies of Governors' Decision Nos. 08-20 and 11-6;
• Attachment 3—a redacted set of the new rates; and
• Attachment 4—a certification addressing costs and prices.
The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2014-58 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, it appoints Pamela A. Thompson to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) representing the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
Public portions of the Postal Service's filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the changes announced in the Notice are consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than July 21, 2014. Comments are to be submitted via the Commission's Filing Online system at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2014-58 for consideration of the Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing Changes in Rates Not of General Applicability for Inbound EMS 2, filed July 11, 2014.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Pamela A. Thompson to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than July 21, 2014.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
Under Section 2(b) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) pays supplemental annuities to qualified RRB employee annuitants. A supplemental annuity, which is computed according to Section 3(e) of the RRA, can be paid at age 60 if the employee has at least 30 years of creditable railroad service or at age 65 if the employee has 25-29 years of railroad service. In addition to 25 years of service, a “current connection” with the railroad industry is required. Eligibility is further limited to employees who had at least one month of rail service before October 1981 and were awarded regular annuities after June 1966. Further, if an employee's 65th birthday was prior to September 2, 1981, he or she must not have worked in rail service after certain closing dates (generally the last day of the month following the month in which age 65 is attained). Under Section 2(h)(2) of the RRA, the amount of the supplemental annuity is reduced if the employee receives monthly pension payments, or a lump-sum pension payment from a private pension from a railroad employer, to the extent the payments
The RRB requires the following information from railroad employers to calculate supplemental annuities: (a) The current status of railroad employer pension plans and whether such plans cause reductions to the supplemental annuity; (b) whether the employee receives monthly payments from a private railroad employer pension, elected to receive a lump-sum in lieu of month pension payments from such a plan; (c) the date monthly pension payments began or a lump-sum payment was received; and (d) the amount of the payments attributable to the railroad employer's contributions. The requirement that railroad employers furnish pension information to the RRB is contained in 20 CFR 209.2.
The RRB currently utilizes Form G-88p,
The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Charles Mierzwa, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-2092 or
On May 20, 2014, the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-OCC-2014-12 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
OCC proposed to amend OCC Rule 604 in order to make its existing policy concerning specified concentration limits related to deposits of certain letters of credit (“LC”) applicable to all letters of credit. Currently, OCC imposes concentration limits on clearing member margin deposits of LCs issued by certain non-U.S. institutions.
Pursuant to review and analysis performed by OCC's Risk Committee, OCC is applying the existing concentration limits related to the deposit of LCs, as set forth in OCC Rule 604, Interpretation and Policy .02, applicable to all margin deposits of LCs regardless of issuer. As a result of this change, no more than 50% of a clearing member's margin on deposit may include LCs and no more than 20% of a clearing member's margin may include an LC from a single issuer. This change is intended to reduce OCC's overall credit risk exposure to LCs deposited as margin by a single clearing member and the potential adverse consequences should an LC issuer not perform upon its payment commitment after receiving a demand for payment.
OCC believes that the rule change will have a minimal impact on its clearing members because LCs comprise less than one percent of OCC's total margin deposits and are currently used by only 13 clearing members. OCC estimates that the proposal will impact three clearing members and .13% of OCC's total margin deposits. Each of these three clearing members has been advised by OCC of the proposed change and OCC stated that all of the affected clearing members have indicated that they will be able to modify its margin deposit practices to reduce its LC deposits without undue difficulty.
OCC has indicated that prior to implementation of this rule change it will publish an information memorandum to inform all clearing members of the rule change. In addition, OCC stated that it contacted clearing members with LCs on deposit that are directly affected by the filing and all clearing members will have access to information, as necessary, to better understand any potential impact the proposed rule change may have on their margin deposits at OCC.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change to enhance concentration limits related to deposits of LC and making those limits applicable to all LC is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly the requirements of Section 17A of the Act,
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 22, 2014, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-ICC-2014-07 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
ICC is proposing to amend the ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures (“EOD Pricing Policy”) to revise the expectations surrounding the unwind of any Firm Trade transaction.
ICC contends that the proposed revision to ICC's EOD Pricing Policy is intended to make the policy more readily enforceable, while maintaining the same or similar level of incentive for ICC Clearing Participants to provide quality price submissions.
ICC contends that ICC Clearing Participants (“CPs”) may be required from time to time, under the ICC EOD Pricing Policy, to enter into trades with other CPs as part of the ICC end-of-day price discovery process (“Firm Trade”). ICC contends that it does not require CPs to maintain Firm Trades as outstanding positions for any particular length of time. Prior to the operation of this proposed rule change, ICC has stated that the ICC EOD Pricing Policy requires CPs that elect to unwind a Firm Trade to do so “at the then-current market price.” ICC contends that there are practical difficulties with objectively determining whether an unwind transaction was executed at the “then-current market price” and therefore such policy is difficult to enforce. ICC proposes via this rule change to revise
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposed revision to ICC's EOD Pricing Policy is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, to Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 7710 (OTC Reporting Facility) relating to fees for the OTC Reporting Facility (“ORF”) and delete Rule 7740 (Historical Research and Administrative Reports) upon migration of the ORF to FINRA's Multi-Product Platform (“MPP”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The ORF is the FINRA facility used by members to report transactions in OTC Equity Securities, as defined in Rule 6420 (
The MPP is a platform owned by FINRA and developed by NASDAQ, as FINRA's technology service provider, that consolidates FINRA's technology for gathering and disseminating trade execution and, where applicable, quotation data, conducting trade comparisons and gathering associated regulatory data for debt and equity securities. FINRA's Alternative Display Facility (“ADF”), which is a quotation display and trade reporting facility for OTC transactions in NMS stocks, and FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”), which is the facility for reporting OTC transactions in eligible fixed income securities, currently operate on the MPP. Prior to migration to the MPP, TRACE, ADF and ORF operated on separate technology platforms.
The ORF will migrate to the MPP on September 15, 2014 and as of that date will no longer operate on the ACT platform.
Today, most firms report trades to the ORF on an automated basis via a computer-to-computer interface (“CTCI”). However, firms also have the option of reporting trades to the ORF through a web browser. Any firm that chooses to use the web browser today must subscribe to NASDAQ's ACT Workstation product and pay the associated fees charged by NASDAQ under NASDAQ rules.
As with TRACE, the ORF is the sole platform for reporting transactions in OTC Equity Securities, and as such, the transaction data is already available to FINRA. Therefore, FINRA is able to offer Level II web browser access for the ORF.
FINRA is proposing to offer two levels of web browser access to the ORF: Level I (Trade Report or Clearing Firm View Only) access and Level II (Full Service) access. Level I access permits a member to report transactions to the ORF via the web browser. In addition to reporting trades through the web browser, members will be able to access Trade Management functions, such as trade reconciliation, cancel and correct, will have access to reference data such as the Security Daily List and will be able to access their trade data for the current trading day plus three prior days.
Clearing member firms also can subscribe to Level I web browser access to view data regarding their correspondents' trades reported to the ORF associated with the subscribing clearing firm's Clearing Number.
Pursuant to proposed Rule 7710(b)(1), FINRA is proposing to charge $20 per month per user ID for Level I (Trade Report or Clearing Firm View Only) web browser access to the ORF. The proposed fee is identical to the fee currently charged under Rule 7510(c)(1) for web browser access and similar trade management functionality for the ADF, and under Rule 7730(a)(1) for Level I Trade Report Only web browser access and trade management functionality for TRACE.
Level II (Full Service) web browser access permits the reporting of
While a Level II web browser subscriber will be able to see all ORF trades at the time of the query in a specific security, the subscriber will not see the continuous TDDS data feed, and the web browser will not include quote data from the BBDS. Thus, FINRA believes that subscribers most likely will use the ORF “time and sales” data for middle and back office functions such as trade reconciliation and compliance.
Pursuant to proposed Rule 7710(b)(2), FINRA is proposing to charge $25 per month per user ID for Level II web browser access to the ORF,
FINRA ADDS is a secure Web site that provides members, by market participant identifier (“MPID”), access to trade journal files containing key information regarding the member's trades reported to FINRA. Members use the trade journal files to reconcile the trade information captured by their own systems against the information captured by the FINRA trade reporting systems. Currently, FINRA ADDS makes recent ADF and TRACE trade journals available for free through the FINRA ADDS Web site and offers subscribers the option of receiving historical data and retrieving data automatically via Secure File Transfer Protocol (“SFTP”) for a fee. FINRA is proposing to enhance FINRA ADDS to include ORF data, to be delivered in the same format and via the same two methods currently used for TRACE and ADF data, and charge fees for such data pursuant to proposed paragraph (c) of Rule 7710.
Under proposed Rule 7710(c)(1), FINRA will provide member subscribers with their own trade data (as FINRA ADDS currently does for TRACE and the ADF). The ORF trade journals provided through FINRA ADDS will replace the equity trade journals for ORF currently provided by NASDAQ. Through the FINRA ADDS Web site, a member will have access to ORF trade data associated with its MPID for the three prior business days free of charge without having to subscribe to the additional optional data services discussed below. As noted above, firms that have web browser access will also be able to download up to three days' worth of their prior day ORF trade data through the Trade Management functionality on the MPP at no additional charge (once the firm has paid any applicable fees, e.g., for ORF web browser access); however, the data will not be in same format as available through FINRA ADDS.
Through FINRA ADDS, members can access their own data for dates older than the most recent three business days for a monthly fee, if they elect to subscribe to receive this additional data through FINRA ADDS (referred to as “ORF Data Delivery Plus” service).
Members also will have the option of subscribing to the SFTP service for ORF trade data, which will enable them to automate the process of retrieving their daily trade journal files. Files will be made available on a daily basis to firms that subscribe to the ORF Data Delivery SFTP service, and firms will be able to connect to FINRA ADDS via SFTP to download their data. Pursuant to proposed Rule 7710(c)(1)(B), FINRA is proposing to charge the following fees to members that elect to receive ORF data via SFTP: (1) A one-time set up fee of $250 for each MPID that subscribes to the service and (2) a monthly fee of $200 per MPID that subscribes to the service. The proposed fees are identical to the current fees charged under Rules 7510(d)(2) and 7730(g)(2) for SFTP delivery of ADF and TRACE data, respectively, through FINRA ADDS.
Thus, firms have the option of subscribing to FINRA ADDS for their ORF, ADF and TRACE trade data and can select the data delivery method that best suits their needs.
Under proposed Rule 7710(c)(2), member clearing firms that elect to subscribe to FINRA ADDS will have access to data regarding their correspondents' clearing eligible trades reported to the ORF associated with the subscribing clearing firm's Clearing Number. FINRA is providing this data at the request of clearing firms, and it will replace the clearing firm trade journal files for ORF currently provided by NASDAQ. Similar to the ORF data provided to firms under proposed Rule 7710(c)(1), ORF data for clearing firms will be available through the FINRA ADDS Web site and via SFTP. Through the FINRA ADDS Web site, a clearing firm will have access to its correspondents' ORF trade data associated with its Clearing Number for the three prior business days free of charge without having to subscribe to the additional optional data services discussed below.
Through FINRA ADDS, clearing firms can access their correspondents' data for dates older than the most recent three business days for a monthly fee. Pursuant to proposed Rule 7710(c)(2)(A), clearing firms that subscribe to access data via the Web site (“Clearing Data Delivery Plus” access) will be charged a flat fee of $150 per Clearing Number
The proposed fees for ORF web browser access, including access to real-time “time and sales” data, and ORF data via FINRA ADDS would allow FINRA to recoup some of the costs of developing and maintaining these services for the ORF on the MPP. Although FINRA already provides web browser access and data for TRACE and the ADF through FINRA ADDS, FINRA will incur additional development and maintenance costs to add ORF to these services. Any time that a new type of data—in this instance ORF data—is added, there is additional development cost to modify the Web site so that users can access that data. Additionally, each new type of data increases the volume of data that FINRA's systems must store in order to make it available for subscribers,
FINRA staff discussed the proposed fees under Rules 7710(b)(1) and (c)(1) with several of FINRA's industry advisory committees. The committees were supportive and had a few clarifying questions. One committee member asked whether the proposed fees effectively are a fee reduction for firms, given that the proposed fees are lower than the current NASDAQ fees. FINRA notes that it will be a reduction for members that only report trades to the ORF; however, members that also report trades to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 7710 to clarify the rule's application without modifying the transaction
Second, FINRA is proposing to clarify that trades reported for regulatory purposes only (
Third, FINRA is proposing to amend the provision of Rule 7710 that imposes a “Late Report—T+N” fee of $0.288 on each party to a late trade report that is submitted one or more days after trade date (T+N).
Fourth, FINRA is proposing to delete the “Query” charge under Rule 7710, which relates to functionality that is specific to ACT and will not apply on the MPP. Upon migration of the ORF to the MPP, members will be able to search for their trades, but there will be no charge for such functionality. In addition, FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 7710 to clarify that the Corrective Transaction Charge applies to “Cancel/Correct” transactions only. The ORF will no longer support “Error, Inhibit, Kill, or No/Was” transactions, which are ACT-specific.
Finally, FINRA notes that Rule 7710 currently provides that transactions that are not subject to comparison
Rule 7740 sets forth the fees to be paid by the purchaser of Historical Research Reports regarding OTC Bulletin Board (“OTCBB”) securities through the OTCBB Web site. As the OTCBB has lost quotation activity in recent years (today, there is virtually no quotation data available through the OTCBB Web site), the value of these reports has declined significantly, and FINRA believes that users have found alternative ways to obtain this data.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The operative date will be the date of ORF migration to the MPP. The ORF is scheduled to migrate to the MPP on September 15, 2014.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA further believes that the proposed fees for web browser access for the ORF under proposed Rule 7710(b) are consistent with the Act because the web browser is one of a number of options available to members for meeting their trade reporting and trade management obligations (other options include CTCI, FIX and third party service providers). Members can elect the option that they determine is the most cost-effective and best suits their business model, and the proposed fees for the web browser would only be charged to member participants and clearing firms that elect to subscribe. The proposed fee for ORF Level I web browser access is identical to the existing fee for web browser access for the ADF under Rule 7510(c)(1) and Level I web browser access for TRACE under Rule 7730(a)(1), which fees were adopted pursuant to proposed rule changes filed with the SEC. Thus, members will pay the same fee for the same trade reporting and trade management functionality offered through the web browser for the ORF, TRACE and ADF on the MPP. The ORF Level I web browser also will provide clearing firms with access to their correspondents' trades for the same fee.
Level II web browser access also is optional and members can obtain real-time ORF transaction data from other sources (
FINRA also believes that the proposed fees for ORF data through FINRA ADDS under proposed Rule 7710(c) are consistent with the Act because FINRA ADDS is an optional service, and the fees would only be charged to member participants and clearing firms that elect to subscribe. The fees for members that subscribe to their own ORF trade data are identical to existing fees for TRACE data through FINRA ADDS under Rule 7730(g), and the Tier 1 fees are also identical to existing fees for ADF data through FINRA ADDS under Rule 7510(d). Such fees were adopted pursuant to proposed rule changes filed with the SEC. FINRA believes it is appropriate to charge identical fees for identical data services for the ORF, TRACE and ADF on the MPP; however, given the larger trading volume reported to the ORF, it is appropriate to have a different tier structure for the ORF as compared to TRACE and the ADF. For these reasons, FINRA believes that the proposed fees for ORF data through FINRA ADDS are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, FINRA believes that the proposed fees for clearing firms that elect to subscribe to their correspondents' clearing eligible ORF trade data are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory. While the proposed fees for clearing firms are higher than the proposed fees for firms subscribing to receive their own trade data, they reflect the more complex queries and, in some cases, larger data sets associated with clearing firm trade journals.
FINRA further believes that the proposed clarifying amendments to Rule 7710 are consistent with the Act because FINRA is not proposing to modify the fee amounts specified in the rule, but rather is proposing to clarify the application of the fees and to accurately reflect the functionality of the ORF upon migration from NASDAQ's ACT platform to the MPP. While the amount of the “Late Report—T+N” fee will continue to be $0.288, contra parties to trades reported late on a T+N basis by the Executing Party will no longer be charged for the late report, and thus some members will see a reduction in fees as a result of the proposed rule change. The amount of the non-comparison fee also will remain unchanged (at $0.029); however, contra parties on “tape only” trade reports will start to be charged the non-comparison fee, and thus some members will see an increase in fees as a result of the proposed rule change. FINRA believes that the overall impact of the proposed rule change on any given firm's fees will be relatively modest. For these reasons, FINRA believes that the proposed clarifying changes to Rule 7710 are appropriate and consistent with the Act, in that they are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory.
Finally, FINRA believes that the proposed deletion of Rule 7740 is consistent with the Act because FINRA is proposing to eliminate fees for historical reports that FINRA believes are of little value today and not relied on by market participants as a source of market data.
FINRA 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. The proposed rule change will not affect all FINRA members, but only those members that use the ORF. Trade reporting in OTC equity securities tends to be highly concentrated with the top 20 firms reporting approximately 87% of all trades to the ORF annually. There are approximately 430 firms that have reported trades to the ORF in a given year, and approximately 275 firms that have reported trades to the ORF each month, over the past several years. FINRA believes that most of the approximately 275 firms that report trades every month will utilize at least
Because the proposed fee for web browser access for trade reporting is reasonable in amount and identical to existing fees for the same access to other FINRA facilities, FINRA does not believe that payment of such fee by any member, or any group or class of members, will result in a burden on competition to such members. Similarly, with respect to the proposed fees for ORF data through the web browser and FINRA ADDS, because the proposed fees are both optional and reasonable in amount and comparable to existing fees for the same data relating to different products through other FINRA facilities, FINRA does not believe that the payment of such fees by any member, or any group or class of members, will result in a burden on competition to such industry members relative to other industry members that elect not to subscribe to the optional services.
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
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to change its procedure for processing fingerprints under its existing Rule 807.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to change the procedure under its existing Rule 807 (Fingerprint-Based Background Checks of Exchange Employees and Independent Contractors) regarding its current practice of conducting fingerprint-based criminal records checks of (i) all prospective and current employees of the Exchange (ii) all prospective and current independent contractors who have or are anticipated to have access to the facilities of the Exchange for ten (10) business days or longer (“contractors”) and (iii) all prospective and current temporary employees who have or are anticipated to have access to facilities of the Exchange for ten (10) business days or longer (“temporary employees”).
Access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (“FBI”) (the fingerprint processing arm of the Office of the Attorney General of the United States) database of fingerprint-based records is permitted only when authorized by law. Section 17(f)(2) of the Act explicitly directs the Attorney General of the United States (
The procedural change that MIAX is proposing under its existing Rule is concerned with the constitution [sic] of a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing Rule of MIAX and MIAX believes that it is therefore eligible to be filed pursuant to
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
In particular, the Exchange believes that fingerprint-based background checks via a Live-Scan system of employees, contractors, and temporary employees is consistent with the foregoing requirements of Section 6(b)(5) in that it will allow MIAX to remain compliant with the requirements of its Rule 807 and applicable federal law.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed procedural change under the existing rule is appropriate in order to ensure continued compliance with applicable state and federal laws.
MIAX does not believe that the proposed procedural change under the rule will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed procedural change under the rule would enhance the security of the Exchange's facilities and records without adding any burden on market participants and allow the Exchange continued compliance with its fingerprinting rules and with Section 17(f)(2) of the Act as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing proposed rule change is filed for immediate effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
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 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.
The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department—
For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, phone: 571-345-2214.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that 10 individuals have applied for a medical exemption from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). In accordance with the statutory requirements concerning applications for exemptions, FMCSA requests public comments on these requests. The statute and implementing regulations concerning exemptions require that exemptions must provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than if they were not granted. If the Agency determines the exemptions would satisfy the statutory requirements and decides to grant theses requests after reviewing the public comments submitted in response to this notice, the exemptions would enable 10 individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2014.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0103 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief Medical Programs, (202) 366-4001,
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has authority to grant exemptions from many of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), as amended by Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 107, 401). FMCSA has published in 49 C.F.R. part 381, subpart C final rules implementing the statutory changes in its exemption procedures made by section 4007, 69 FR 51589 (August 20, 2004).
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not
FMCSA also issues instructions for completing the medical examination report and includes advisory criteria on the report itself to provide guidance for medical examiners in applying the hearing standard. See 49 CFR 391.43(f). The current advisory criteria for the hearing standard include a reference to a report entitled “Hearing Disorders and Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers” prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, FMCSA's predecessor, in 1993.
FMCSA requests comments from all interested parties on whether a driver who cannot meet the hearing standard should be permitted to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Further, the Agency asks for comments on whether a driver who cannot meet the hearing standard should be limited to operating only certain types of vehicles in interstate commerce, for example, vehicles without air brakes. The statute and implementing regulations concerning exemptions require that the Agency request public comments on all applications for exemptions. The Agency is also required to make a determination that an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption before granting any such requests.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Mr. Beacham, 41, holds an operator's license in Maryland.
Mr. Carter, 22, holds an operator's license in Louisiana.
Mr. Gensmer, 28, holds an operator's license in Minnesota.
Mr. Godfrey, 40, holds an operator's license in Kentucky.
Mr. Katakurd, 39, holds an operator's license in Hawaii.
Mr. Mitchell, 35, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Alabama.
Mr. Parrish, 49, holds an operator's license in California.
Mr. Skelton, 35, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Texas.
Mr. Whitworth, 44, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Louisiana.
Mr. Shelander, 37, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Texas.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments received before the close of business August 18, 2014. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 40 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has
This decision is effective August 18, 2014. Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2014.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0174; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2010-0082], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 40 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 40 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 40 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (63 FR 66227; 64 FR 16520; 71 FR 14567; 71 FR 30228; 73 FR 28187; 73 FR 35195; 73 FR 35196; 73 FR 35197; 73 FR 35198; 73 FR 35199; 73 FR 35200; 73 FR 35201; 73 FR 38497; 73 FR 38498; 73 FR 38499; 73 FR 48273; 73 FR 48275; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 74 FR 37299; 74 FR 48344; 75 FR 25919; 75 FR 39729; 75 FR 44051; 76 FR 8809; 77 FR 40946; 77 FR 46153). Each of these 40
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by August 18, 2014.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 40 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 88 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. At the end of the comment period, the Agency will grant exemptions to the applicants listed herein if there are no adverse comments that indicate the driver's ability will not achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulations. All comments will be reviewed and evaluated by FMCSA. Some individuals appearing in this notice may not receive exemptions based on comments submitted during the comment period. Individuals not granted an exemption may either be published at a future date based on further evaluation, or may not be deemed to meet the aforementioned level of safety if granted an exemption. These individuals will be published in a quarterly notice of exemption denials. As always, any adverse comments received after the exemption is granted will be evaluated, and if they indicate that the driver is not achieving a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation, the exemption will be revoked. When granted, the exemptions will allow these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2014. All comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued the day after the comment period closes.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0018 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 88 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency has evaluated the qualifications of each applicant and determined that granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Ackerman, age 58, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ackerman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ackerman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from New Jersey.
Mr. Applebee, 66, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Applebee understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Applebee meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Barney, 27, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Barney understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Barney meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Iowa.
Mr. Baxter, 39, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Baxter understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Baxter meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.
Mr. Berggren, 48, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Berggren understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Berggren meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Boyle, 59, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Boyle understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Boyle meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Idaho.
Mr. Burns, 65, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Burns understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Burns meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Cardon, 55, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cardon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cardon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Arizona.
Mr. Caudill, 56, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Caudill understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Caudill meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Cornish, 64, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cornish understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cornish meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas.
Mr. Cran, 66, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cran understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cran meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Crook, 52, has had ITDM since 1977. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Crook understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Crook meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Iowa.
Mr. Dinkel, 54, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dinkel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dinkel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Dixon, 76, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dixon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
Mr. Dunaway, 63, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dunaway understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dunaway meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Elder, 40, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Elder understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Elder meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Eldridge, 55, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Eldridge understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Eldridge meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Ely, 23, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ely understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ely meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Erickson, 51, has had ITDM since 1978. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Erickson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Erickson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Erickson, 69, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Erickson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Erickson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Evans, 53, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Evans understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Evans meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Connecticut.
Mr. Foshee, 24, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Foshee understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Foshee meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Mississippi.
Mr. Fox, 50, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function
Mr. Frank, 43, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Frank understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Frank meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Frankfurter, 55, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Frankfurter understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Frankfurter meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado.
Mr. Garman, 25, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Garman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Garman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Godejohn, 51, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Godejohn understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Godejohn meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota.
Mr. Gonzales, 34, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gonzales understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gonzales meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from California.
Mr. Groves, 61, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Groves understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Groves meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Gwaltney, 56, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gwaltney understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gwaltney meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffeur's license from Indiana.
Mr. Hale, 45, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hale understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hale meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does
Mr. Hamilton, 61, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hamilton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hamilton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida.
Mr. Holtzclaw, 41, has had ITDM since 1976. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Holtzclaw understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holtzclaw meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Missouri.
Mr. Horn, 55, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Horn understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Horn meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Hampshire.
Mr. Howard, 75, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Howard understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Howard meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Texas.
Mr. Hubbard, 42, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hubbard understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hubbard meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. Hulce, 48, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hulce understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hulce meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.
Mr. Kauffman, 44, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kauffman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kauffman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Kittoe, 28, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kittoe understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kittoe meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Kroetch, 33, has had ITDM since 1985. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kroetch understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
Mr. Langham, 63, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Langham understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Langham meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Lofton, 52, has had ITDM since 1983. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lofton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lofton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Alabama.
Mr. Lopez, 54, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lopez understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lopez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arizona.
Mr. Macias, 45, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Macias understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Macias meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Mexico.
Mr. Marino, 40, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Marino understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Marino meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Martin, 21, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Martin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Martin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. McCoy, 49, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McCoy understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCoy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.
Mr. Medlin, 56, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Medlin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Medlin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Miller, 31, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no
Mr. Napoles, 22, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Napoles understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Napoles meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Ms. Nelms, 43, has had ITDM since 2014. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2014 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Nelms understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Nelms meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2014 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Oliveira, 58, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Oliveira understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Oliveira meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Oswald, 52, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Oswald understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Oswald meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Overton, 44, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Overton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Overton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Patrick, 47, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Patrick understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Patrick meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Patterson, 37, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Patterson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Patterson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Tennessee.
Mr. Pelton, 63, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pelton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pelton meets the
Mr. Perry, 43, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Perry understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Perry meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Perschon, 59, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Perschon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Perschon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from IL.
Mr. Polhamus, 58, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Polhamus understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Polhamus meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Louisiana.
Mr. Rajkovich, 39, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rajkovich understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rajkovich meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from California.
Mr. Resetar, 41, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Resetar understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Resetar meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Rhone, 59, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rhone understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rhone meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.
Mr. Rich, 56, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rich understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rich meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Kansas.
Mr. Roberts, 48, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Roberts understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Roberts meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Mississippi.
Mr. Roesler, 67, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the
Mr. Rone, 46, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rone understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rone meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Sanders, 75, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sanders understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sanders meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Utah.
Mr. Sanderson, 61, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sanderson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sanderson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana.
Mr. Shipp, 51, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Shipp understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Shipp meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Rhode Island.
Mr. Standley, 47, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Standley understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Standley meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Steigauf, 55, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Steigauf understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Steigauf meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Stroup, 48, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stroup understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stroup meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Stutts, 42, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stutts understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stutts meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
Mr. Taylor, 42, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Taylor understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Taylor meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Thomas, 59, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thomas understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thomas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.
Mr. Thompson, 44, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thompson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thompson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Villanueva, 49, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Villanueva understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Villanueva meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Watts, 61, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Watts understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Watts meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Ms. Wells, 55, has had ITDM since 2013. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2014 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Wells understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Wells meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2014 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class C CDL from New York.
Mr. White, 63, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. White understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. White meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Whitehurst, 70, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Whitehurst understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Whitehurst meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas.
Mr. Williams, 55, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
Mr. Worl, 40, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Worl understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Worl meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana.
Mr. Wornick, 48, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wornick understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wornick meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Yeftich, 56, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Yeftich understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Yeftich meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Yeomans, 65, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Yeomans understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Yeomans meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Connecticut.
Mr. Yerkey, 39, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Yerkey understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Yerkey meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 88 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Absent the receipt of comments indicating that a driver's ability would not achieve the aforementioned level of safety, the Agency will grant the drivers an exemption the day after the comment period closes.
The agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441)
These 88 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 37 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Under 49 U.S.C 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the granted applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section of the notice.
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3 years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 USC. 31136(e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, to submit your comment online, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 7 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective August 29, 2014. Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2014.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0161], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 7 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 7 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 7 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (77 FR 41879; 77 FR 52391). Each of these 7 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by August 18, 2014.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 7 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 5 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement for operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The applicants are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will allow these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. At the end of the comment period, the Agency will grant exemptions to the applicants listed herein if there are no adverse comments that indicate the driver's ability will not achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulations. All comments will be reviewed and evaluated by FMCSA. Some individuals appearing in this notice may not receive exemptions based on comments received during the comment period. Individuals not granted an exemption may either be published at a future date based on further evaluation or may not be deemed to meet the aforementioned level of safety if granted an exemption. These individuals will be published in a quarterly notice of exemption denials. As always, any adverse comments received after the exemption is granted will be evaluated, and if they indicate that the driver is not achieving a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation, the exemption will be revoked. When granted, the exemptions will allow these individuals with vision deficiencies in one eye to operate in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2014. All comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued the day after the comment period closes.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0008 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 5 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency has evaluated the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Bolomey, 40, has strabismus, a cataract, and optic nerve damage in his right eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Needs to be checked for Federal DOT exemption. No changes to vision. Snce [
Mr. Manchester, 46, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “Mr. Manchester [
Mr. Schulte, 57, has a large corneal scar resulting in poor vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “I examined Mr. Schulte on April 3, 2014. He wanted to get an interstate CDL. Currently he has intrastate license only. He has a history of an injury to his right cornea . . . Since he is presently driving in the state and has no trouble [
Mr. Workman, 56, has had Coats' disease and a branch retinal artery occlusion resulting in a macular scar in his left eye since 2009. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “I certify in my medical opinion the Mr [
Mr. Wooton, 36, has a macular scar in his left eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “I have recommended that he is safely about to operate [
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 5 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Absent the receipt of comments indicating that a driver's ability would not achieve the aforementioned level of safety, the Agency will grant the drivers an exemption the day after the comment period closes.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
MCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted Ftheir driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 5 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, and in most cases their eye conditions were not recently developed. Four of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The one individual that sustained his vision condition as an adult has had it for 5 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 5 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant is stated and discussed in detail above.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and non-concurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 5 applicants, none of the drivers were involved in crashes or convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
FMCSA believes that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 5 applicants listed in this notice.
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 5 individuals consistent with the Grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments received before the close of business August 18, 2014. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public docket for new material.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 5 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective August 27, 2014. Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2014.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2004-17195; FMCSA-2011-0380; FMCSA-2012-0160], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
This notice addresses 5 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 5 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 5 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (69 FR 17263; 69 FR 31447; 71 FR 43557; 73 FR 42403; 75 FR 38602; 77 FR 17109; 77 FR 27845; 77 FR 38381; 77 FR 40946; 77 FR 51846). Each of these 5 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by August 18, 2014.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 5 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).
Notice.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on this continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
The OCC is soliciting comment on proposed revisions to the regulatory reporting templates and documentation for covered institutions with total consolidated assets of $10 billion to $50 billion.
Comments must be received by September 15, 2014.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0311, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You can request additional information from or a copy of the collection from Johnny Vilela or Mary H. Gottlieb, Clearance Officers, (202) 649-5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, copies of the templates referenced in this notice can be found on the OCC's Web site under Tools and Forms (
The OCC is requesting comment on a revision to the following information collection:
On October 11, 2013, the OCC published in the
The OCC proposes to revise the reporting templates for institutions with $10 to $50 billion in assets to reflect the changes to the revised regulatory capital rule. Specifically, the OCC proposes to add a common equity tier 1 capital data item to the Balance Sheet and a common equity tier 1 risk-based capital ratio data item to the Summary Schedule and Balance Sheet Schedules (baseline, adverse, and severely adverse scenarios) in order to reflect the requirements of the revised regulatory capital rule. These revisions would be effective for the 2015 stress test cycle (using September 2014 data and November 2014 scenarios with submission of results in March 2015).
The OCC also proposes several clarifications to the reporting instructions including: Indicating that the Scenario Variables Schedule would be collected as a reporting form in Reporting Central (instead of as a file submitted in Adobe Acrobat PDF format) and clarifying how the supporting qualitative information should be organized.
The OCC has worked closely with the Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to make the agencies' respective rules implementing the annual stress testing requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act consistent and comparable by requiring similar standards for scope of application, scenarios, data collection and reporting forms. The OCC also has worked to minimize any potential duplication of effort related to the annual stress test requirements.
The burden for each $10 to $50 billion covered institution that completes the revised results template is estimated to be 445 hours for a total of 12,905 hours. The proposed revisions are estimated to add 5 hours of additional burden per respondent, increasing the burden from 440 hours to 445 hours. This burden includes 20 hours to input these data and 425 hours for work related to modeling efforts. The estimated revised burden for each $10 to $50 billion covered institution that completes the annual DFAST Scenarios Variables Template is estimated to be 24 hours for a total of 696 hours.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and,
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before September 15, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
a. Hematologic and Lymphatic Conditions, Including Leukemia Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960B-2.
b. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's Disease) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960C-2.
c. Peripheral Nerve Conditions (Not Including Diabetic Sensory-Motor Peripheral Neuropathy) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960C-10.
d. Persian Gulf and Afghanistan Infectious Diseases Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960I-1.
e. Tuberculosis Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960I-6.
f. Kidney Conditions (Nephrology) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960J-1.
g. Male Reproductive Organ Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960J-2.
h. Prostate Cancer Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960J-3.
l. Eating Disorders Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960P-1.
m. Mental Disorders (other than PTSD and Eating Disorders) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960P-2.
n. Review Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0960P-3.
a. VA Form 21-0960B-2—15 minutes.
b. VA Form 21-0960C-2—30 minutes.
c. VA Form 21-0960C-10—45 minutes.
d. VA Form 21-0960I-1—15 minutes.
e. VA Form 21-0960I-6—30 minutes.
f. VA Form 21-0960J-1—30 minutes.
g. VA Form 21-0960J-2—15 minutes.
h. VA Form 21-0960J-3—15 minutes.
l. VA Form 21-0960P-1—15 minutes.
m. VA Form 21-0960P-2—30 minutes.
n. VA Form 21-0960P-3—30 minutes.
a. VA Form 21-0960B-2—10,000.
b. VA Form 21-0960C-2—2,000.
c. VA Form 21-0960C-10—55,000.
d. VA Form 21-0960I-1—50,000.
e. VA Form 21-0960I-6—5,000.
f. VA Form 21-0960J-1—25,000.
g. VA Form 21-0960J-2—25,000.
h. VA Form 21-0960J-3—25,000.
i. VA Form 21-0960M-13—50,000.
j. VA Form 21-0960M-14—50,000.
k. VA Form 21-0960O-1—25,000.
l. VA Form 21-0960P-1—5,000.
m. VA Form 21-0960P-2—50,000.
n. VA Form 21-0960P-3—55,000.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before September 15, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632-8924 or FAX (202) 632-8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501—3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of Amendment to System of Records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)), notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending a system of records in its inventory titled “Supervised Fiduciary/Beneficiary and General Investigative Records—VA” (37VA27). VA is amending the system of records by updating it to reflect current program terminology, policies, and procedures, and revising the name, purpose(s), system manager and address, categories of individuals, types of information, and routine uses of records maintained in the system. VA is republishing the system notice in its entirety.
Comments on this amended system of records must be received no later than August 18, 2014. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments concerning this amended system of records may be submitted through
Mr. Chad Phillips, Program Analyst, Pension and Fiduciary Service, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or
This system of records contains guidelines for the administration of benefits in regards to beneficiaries who have been deemed unable to manage their financial affairs by VA or a court. VA is amending this system of records to change the system name and location, update storage methods, and add categories of individuals covered by the system and categories of records maintained in the system. VA is also amending the routine uses of records maintained in the system, including the categories of users and the purposes of such uses, as well as the record sources to protect the confidentiality and govern the release of VA records subject to 38 U.S.C. 5701, which permits disclosure in accordance with valid routine uses.
VA is changing the system's name to reflect our retirement of the legacy system, Fiduciary Beneficiary System, and deployment of the current system, Beneficiary Fiduciary Field System. VA is also updating the location of the system to reflect the Veterans Benefits Administration's consolidation of fiduciary work from 56 regional offices to 6 fiduciary hubs. Further, VA is revising the storage method for records to highlight the transfer of program documentation from paper records stored at individual regional offices to electronic records stored in a repository.
VA is amending the categories of individuals covered by the system, to clarify that the system pertains to records regarding current, former, and prospective VA-appointed fiduciaries. VA is also adding a category for those individuals designated as a beneficiary's preference for appointment by VA, regardless of whether VA is able to appoint the individual.
VA is amending the categories of records in the system to update the language used to describe the categories and records consistent with current fiduciary program policies and procedures. The amendments add category numbers 7 and 8, which pertain, respectively, to individuals who previously served as a VA fiduciary and individuals who VA considered for appointment as a VA fiduciary but who were not selected for service. Historical information regarding past fiduciaries and their performance provides VA the ability to ensure that only the best qualified fiduciaries serve our beneficiary population and that VA does not appoint a fiduciary that VA had previously removed. Including information related to the qualification and appointment of individuals seeking to serve as fiduciary is also an important addition. It will allow VA to share with beneficiaries, prospective fiduciaries, and other qualified individuals the reasons for selection or non-selection of an individual as fiduciary for a particular beneficiary.
VA is amending its routine uses to add a new number 22, which authorizes disclosure of information to the beneficiary regarding VA's reasons for selection or non-selection of an individual as fiduciary for a beneficiary. An April 2011 court decision held that a beneficiary may appeal VA's fiduciary appointment decisions to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Accordingly, VA must inform beneficiaries of the reasons for its appointment decisions, to include, in some cases, the reasons why VA decided not to appoint the individual designated by the beneficiary as his or her preference. This information may include the results of a criminal background check, credit history check, ability to obtain a surety bond, or any other information regarding a prospective fiduciary that is relevant to VA's best-interest determination.
VA is further amending routine uses to add a new number 23. It authorizes VA to disclose information about allegations, investigations, and determinations of misuse by a fiduciary to a beneficiary. VA intends to allow a beneficiary to appeal VA's decisions regarding misuse to include the misuse determination, any request for reconsideration submitted by the fiduciary, and negligence determinations that affect the reissuance of benefits to the beneficiary or his or her current fiduciary. This information could include personal information about the fiduciary relevant to the possible misuse of a beneficiary's funds.
VA is also expanding the record source categories to include information from individuals who previously served as fiduciaries, persons considered by VA for appointment as a fiduciary but who were not selected, and additional categories of VA personnel. A correction is also being made to reflect a VA position title change from “estate analyst” to “legal instruments examiner.”
These additions and amendments will greatly enhance VA's ability to manage program records and, in turn, better meet the needs of this beneficiary population.
The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veteran Affairs, approved this document on June 26, 2014, for publication.
Beneficiary Fiduciary Field System (BFFS)-VA.
Records are maintained at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) fiduciary hub that has jurisdiction over the geographical area in which the VA beneficiary resides, and the Austin Data Processing Center in Austin, Texas. The BFFS system and associated electronic records are maintained at a private Federal hosting facility. Addresses of VA fiduciary hubs and the Data Processing Center are listed in VA Appendix 1.
Documents and information pertaining to program issues and categories of individuals covered by the system are stored in an electronic record repository.
The following categories of individuals are covered by this system:
1. VA beneficiaries (i.e., a veteran or a non-veteran adult who receives VA monetary benefits, lacks the mental capacity to manage his or her own financial affairs regarding disbursement of funds without limitation, and is
2. Current, former, and prospective VA-appointed fiduciaries (i.e., a VA Federal fiduciary appointed by VA to serve as fiduciary of VA monetary benefits for a VA beneficiary determined unable to manage his or her financial affairs; or a person or legal entity appointed by a State or foreign court to supervise the person and/or payee of a VA beneficiary adjudged to be under a legal disability). The statutory title of a court-appointed fiduciary may vary from State to State.
3. A chief officer of a hospital, domiciliary, institutional or nursing home care facility where a beneficiary, who VA has determined is unable to manage his or her financial affairs, is receiving care and who has contracted to use the veteran's VA funds in a specific manner.
4. Supervised Direct Payment (SDP) (i.e., an adult beneficiary in the fiduciary program who manages his or her VA benefits with limited and temporary supervision based upon a field examination and subsequent to determination by the hub manager pertaining to benefits eligibility and other issues; or, to develop evidence for further investigations of potential criminal issues).
5. Physicians named in treatment records and financial managers or attorneys who help disperse funds for VA beneficiaries deemed unable to manage those funds.
The records in the electronic fiduciary folder are the primary records in this system. Social Security Administration (SSA) derived records, as needed, are also contained in this system. These records may contain the following types of information:
1. Field examination reports (i.e., VA Form 27-4716a or 27-3190, Field Examination Request and Report, which contains a VA beneficiary's name, address, Social Security number, VA file number, an assessment of the beneficiary's ability to handle VA and non-VA funds, description of family relationships, economic and social adjustment information, information on the beneficiary's activities, and the name, address, and assessment of the performance of a VA-appointed fiduciary).
2. Correspondence from and to a VA beneficiary, a VA-appointed fiduciary, and other interested third parties.
3. Medical records (i.e., medical and social work reports generated in VA, State, local, or private medical treatment facilities or private physicians' offices indicating the medical history of a VA beneficiary, including diagnosis, treatment and nature of any physical or mental disability).
4. Financial records (e.g., accountings regarding a fiduciary's management of a beneficiary's income, investments, and accumulated funds, amount of monthly benefits received, amounts charged for fees by the fiduciary, certificates of balance on accounts from financial institutions, and withdrawal agreements between VA, financial institutions, and the fiduciary).
5. Court documents (e.g., petitions, court orders, letters of guardianship, inventories of assets, and depositions).
6. Agreements to serve as a VA Federal fiduciary.
7. Information pertaining to individuals, including companies and other entities, who previously served as a VA-appointed fiduciary.
8. Information related to the qualification and appointment of individuals, including companies and other entities, considered by VA for appointment as a fiduciary.
9. Photographs of people (beneficiaries who VA has determined are unable to manage their financial affairs, fiduciaries, and other persons who are the subject of a VA investigation), places, and things.
10. Fingerprint records.
11. SSA records containing information about the type and amount of SSA benefits paid to beneficiaries who are eligible to receive benefits under both VA and SSA eligibility criteria, records containing information developed by SSA about SSA beneficiaries who are in need of representative payees, accountings provided to SSA, and records containing information about SSA representative payees. Also contained in this system are copies of non-fiduciary program investigation records. These records are reports of field examinations or investigations performed at the request of any organizational element of VA about any subject under the jurisdiction of VA other than a fiduciary issue. In addition to copies of the reports, records may include copies of exhibits or attachments such as photographs of people, places, and things; sworn statements; legal documents involving loan guaranty transactions, bankruptcy, and debts owed to VA; accident reports; birth, death, and divorce records; certification of search for vital statistics documents; beneficiary's financial statements and tax records; immigration information; and newspaper clippings.
Section 501(a), (b), and chapter 55 of Title 38, United States Code.
This system will collect a limited amount of personally identifiable information to provide authorized individuals access to or interaction with VA. The information collected by the system will include: Name, mailing address, Social Security number, medical record information, and financial information. The system also enables VA to maintain the name, mailing address, Social Security or tax identification number, and credit and criminal histories of individuals who are currently VA-appointed fiduciaries, who previously served as VA-appointed fiduciaries, or who were considered for service as VA-appointed fiduciaries, for the purpose of qualifying the individual for service as a fiduciary and providing oversight of fiduciaries. See the statutory provisions cited in “Authority for maintenance of the system.” VA gathers or creates these records in order to enable it to administer these statutory benefits programs.
1. The record of an individual who is covered by this system may be disclosed to a member of Congress or staff person acting for the member when the member or staff person requests the record on behalf of and at the request of that individual.
2. Any information in this system, except for the name and address of a veteran, which is relevant to a suspected violation or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, may be disclosed to a Federal, State, local, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, at the initiative of VA.
3. The name and address of a veteran, which is relevant to a suspected violation or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, may be disclosed to a Federal agency charged with the
4. The name and address of a veteran, which is relevant to a suspected violation or reasonably imminent violation of law concerning public health or safety, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, may be disclosed to any foreign, State, or local governmental agency or instrumentality charged under applicable law with the protection of the public health or safety, if a qualified representative of such organization, agency or instrumentality has made a written request that such name and address be provided for a purpose authorized by law, and, if the information is sought for law enforcement investigation purposes, and the request otherwise complies with subsection (b)(7) of the Privacy Act.
5. The name and address of a veteran may be disclosed to any nonprofit organization if the release is directly connected with the conduct of programs and the utilization of benefits under title 38 (such disclosures include computerized lists of names and addresses).
6. Any information in this system, including name, address, Social Security number, VA file number, medical records, financial records, and field examination reports of a VA beneficiary, and the name, address, and information regarding the activities of a VA-appointed fiduciary or beneficiary may be disclosed at the request of a VA beneficiary or fiduciary to a Federal, State, or local agency in order for VA to obtain information relevant to a VA decision concerning the payment and usage of funds payable by VA on behalf of a beneficiary, or to enable VA to assist a beneficiary or VA-appointed fiduciary in obtaining the maximum amount of benefits for a VA beneficiary from a Federal, State, or local agency.
7. Any information in this system, including name, address, Social Security number, VA file number, medical records, financial records, and field examination reports of a VA beneficiary who is in receipt of VA and SSA benefits concurrently, and the name, address, and information regarding the activities of a VA-supervised fiduciary may be disclosed to a representative of the SSA to the extent necessary for the operation of a VA program, or to the extent needed as indicated by such representative.
8. The name and address of a VA beneficiary, the VA rating that indicates the beneficiary is unable to manage his or her financial affairs, and the field examination report upon which the rating was based may be disclosed to a Federal agency, upon its official request, in order for that agency to make decisions on such matters as competency and dependency in connection with eligibility for that agency's benefits. This information may also be disclosed to a State or local agency, upon its official request, in order for that agency to make decisions on such matters as competency and dependency in connection with eligibility for that agency's benefits, if the information pertains to a VA beneficiary who is not a veteran, or if the name and address of the veteran is provided beforehand.
9. Any information in this system, including medical records, financial records, field examination reports, correspondence and court documents may be disclosed in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate or administrative tribunal in matters of guardianship, inquests and commitments, and to probation and parole officers in connection with court required duties.
10. Only so much information, including information in VA records obtained from the SSA, and the name and address of a VA beneficiary, fiduciary, or other person under investigation, as is necessary to obtain a coherent and informed response may be released to a third party who may have information bearing on an issue under VA investigation.
11. Any information in this system may be disclosed to a VA-appointed fiduciary in order for that fiduciary to perform his or her duties, provided this information will only be released when the disclosure is for the benefit of the beneficiary. Any information in this system may also be disclosed to a proposed fiduciary in order for the fiduciary to make an informed decision with regard to accepting fiduciary responsibility for a VA beneficiary.
12. Any information in this system, including medical records, correspondence records, financial records, field examination reports, and court documents may be disclosed to an attorney employed by the beneficiary, or to a spouse, relative, next friend, or to a guardian ad litem representing the interests of the beneficiary, provided the name and address of the beneficiary is given beforehand and the disclosure is for the benefit of the beneficiary, and the release is authorized by 38 U.S.C. 7332, if applicable. Records subject to 38 U.S.C. 7332 contain information on medical treatment for drug abuse, alcoholism, sickle cell anemia, and HIV.
13. Any information in this system may be disclosed to the Department of Justice and to U.S. Attorneys for litigation involving the United States and to Federal agencies upon their official request in connection with review of administrative tort claims filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2672, as well as other claims.
14. Any information in this system including available identifying information regarding the debtor, such as the name of the debtor, last known address of the debtor, name of debtor's spouse, Social Security number, VA insurance number, VA file number, place of birth and date of birth of debtor, name and address of debtor's employer or firm, and dates of employment may be disclosed to other Federal agencies, State probate courts, State driver's license bureaus, State automobile title and license bureaus, and the General Accounting Office in order to obtain current address, locator, and credit report assistance in the collection of unpaid financial obligations owed the United States. The purpose is consistent with the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 and 38 U.S.C. 5701(b)(6).
15. Any information in this system relating to the adjudication of a VA beneficiary's ability to manage his or her VA benefits, either by a court of competent jurisdiction or by VA, may be disclosed to a lender or prospective lender participating in the VA Loan Guaranty Program who is extending credit or proposing to extend credit on behalf of a veteran for VA to protect veterans in this category from entering into unsound financial transactions which might deplete the resources of the veteran and to protect the interest of the Government giving credit assistance to a veteran.
16. VA may disclose information from this system of records to the Department of Justice (DoJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is relevant to DoJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that release of the records to DoJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. VA, on
17. Disclosure of relevant information may be made to individuals, organizations, public or private agencies, or other entities with whom VA has a contract or agreement or where there is a subcontract to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor or subcontractor to perform the services of the contract or agreement.
18. VA may disclose on its own initiative any information in this system, except the names and mailing addresses of veterans and their dependents, that is relevant to a suspected violation or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto to a Federal, State, local, Tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule, or order.
19. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
20. VA may on its own initiative, disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) VA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to the economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the programs (whether maintained by VA or another agency or entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out VA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This routine use permits disclosures by VA to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724, as the terms are defined in 38 U.S.C. 5727.
21. The name and mailing address of a VA beneficiary, and other information as is reasonably necessary to identify such a beneficiary, who has been adjudicated as incapable of managing his or her financial affairs under 38 CFR 3.353, may be provided to the Attorney General of the United States or his/her designee, for use by DoJ in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Public Law 103-59.
22. The name, mailing address, and any other information obtained by VA pertaining to the qualification of an individual seeking appointment as a VA fiduciary may be released to the beneficiary or his or her accredited representative or court-appointed guardian for the purpose of notifying the beneficiary of the reasons for selection or non-selection of the individual.
23. The name, mailing address, and any other information obtained by VA pertaining to the allegation, investigation, determination of misuse by a fiduciary, or determination of negligence on the part of VA may be released to the beneficiary or his or her accredited representative or court-appointed guardian for the purpose of notifying the beneficiary of the reasons for VA's decision regarding misuse.
VA electronically maintains fiduciary program beneficiary and fiduciary information in electronic fiduciary folders in BFFS at the VA Data Processing Center in Austin, Texas. Non-fiduciary program investigations and related information are maintained on paper documents and stored at the fiduciary hubs and at VA Central Office.
Records (or information contained in records) are also maintained in electronic file folders (e.g., Virtual VA). Such information may be accessed through data telecommunication terminal systems designated for the Benefits Delivery Network (BDN), Virtual VA, and Veterans Service Network (VETSNET). BDN, Virtual VA, and VETSNET terminal locations include VA Central Office, regional offices, VA health care facilities, Veterans Integrated Service Networks, Department of Defense Finance and Accounting Service Centers, and the U.S. Coast Guard Pay and Personnel Center. Remote online access is also made available to authorized remote sites and claimants' representatives, to include VA-accredited representatives of VA-recognized veterans service organizations, and VA-accredited attorneys and claims agents. A VA claimant must execute a prior written consent or a power of attorney authorizing access to his or her claims records before VA will allow the representative to have access to the claimant's automated claims records. Representatives may use the access solely for the purpose of assisting an individual claimant whose records are accessed in a claim for benefits administered by VA. Information relating to receivable accounts owed to VA, designated the Centralized Accounts Receivable System (CARS), is maintained on magnetic tape, microfiche and microfilm. CARS is accessed through a data telecommunications terminal system at St. Paul, Minnesota.
Paper documents and automated storage media are indexed by name and file number of VA beneficiary or other individual.
1. Historical individual case folder and computer lists are generally kept in steel cabinets when not in use. The cabinets are located in areas which are locked after work hours. Access to these records is restricted to authorized VA personnel on a “need to know” basis.
2. Access to the computer rooms within the regional office with jurisdiction over fiduciary hubs is generally limited by appropriate locking devices and restricted to authorized VA employees and vendor personnel. Automatic Data Processing peripheral devices are generally placed in secure areas (areas that are locked or have limited access) or are otherwise protected. Information in the BFFS may be accessed by authorized VA employees. Access to file information is controlled at two levels; the system recognizes authorized employees by a series of individually unique passwords/codes, and the employees are limited to only the information in the file which is needed in the performance of their official duties.
3. Access to the VA data processing center is generally restricted to center employees, custodial personnel, Federal Protective Service, and other security personnel. Access to the computer rooms is restricted to authorized operational personnel through electronic locking devices. All other
4. Access to records in VA Central Office is only authorized to VA personnel on a “need to know” basis. Records are maintained in manned rooms during working hours. During non-working hours, there is limited access to the building with visitor control by security personnel.
Paper documents received are scanned into VA's electronic document repository and subsequently destroyed after 90 days. Electronic records are not purged.
Director, Pension and Fiduciary Service (21PF), VA Central Office, Washington, DC 20420.
Any individual who wishes to determine whether a record is being maintained in this system under his or her name or other personal identifier, or wants to determine the content of such records, should submit a written request or apply in person to the nearest VA regional office or center. Addresses for VA regional offices and centers may be found in VA Appendix 1. All inquiries must reasonably identify the type of records involved, e.g., fiduciary file. Inquiries should include the individual's full name, VA file number, and return address. If a VA file number is not available, then as much of the following information as possible should be forwarded: Full name, branch of service, dates of service, service numbers, Social Security number, and date of birth.
Individuals seeking information regarding access to or contesting VA records in this system may write, call, or visit the nearest VA regional office or center.
See records access procedures above.
VA beneficiary, VA beneficiary's dependents, VA-appointed fiduciaries, individuals who were previously VA-appointed fiduciaries, individuals who VA considered for service as a VA-appointed fiduciary but did not select, field examiners, legal instrument examiners, fiduciary program personnel, third parties, other Federal, State, and local agencies, and VA records.
Please send address and telephone number corrections to: Department of Veterans Affairs, Pension and Fiduciary Service (21PF), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule; Notice of Public Hearing.
On August 16, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published final new source performance standards for the oil and natural gas sector. The Administrator received petitions for administrative reconsideration of certain aspects of the standards. Among issues raised in the petitions were time-critical issues related to certain storage vessel provisions and well completion provisions. On September 23, 2013, the EPA published final amendments as a result of reconsideration of issues related to implementation of the storage vessel provisions. Following that action, the Administrator again received petitions for administrative reconsideration pertaining to the storage vessel provisions. In this notice, the EPA is announcing proposed amendments and clarifications as a result of reconsideration of certain issues related to well completions and additional issues pertaining to storage vessels. The proposed amendments also address other issues raised for reconsideration and make technical corrections and amendments to further clarify the rule.
If a public hearing is requested by July 22, 2014, it will be held on August 1, 2014 at the EPA's Research Triangle Park Campus, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The hearing will convene at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time) and end at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time). A lunch break will be held from 12:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) until 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time). Please contact Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832, or at
If a hearing is held, it will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because these hearings are being held at U.S. government facilities, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification (e.g., driver's license or government-issued ID) to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. These requirements will take effect July 21, 2014. If your driver's license is issued by Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma or Washington State, you must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal buildings where the public hearings will be held. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses and military identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons. The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. If a hearing is held on August 1, 2014, written comments on the proposed rule must be postmarked by September 2, 2014. Commenters should notify Ms. Hunt if they will need specific equipment, or if there are other special needs related to providing comments at the hearing. The EPA will provide equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized slide presentations if we receive special requests in advance. Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes for each commenter. Verbatim transcripts of the hearings and written statements will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Information regarding the hearing (including information as to whether or not one will be held) will be available at:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Mr. Bruce Moore, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5460; facsimile number: (919) 541-3470; email address:
Several acronyms and terms are included in this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms are defined here:
Categories and entities potentially affected by today's
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather is meant to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 60.4 or 40 CFR 63.13 (General Provisions).
We seek comment only on the aspects of the final new source performance standards for the oil and natural gas sector specifically identified in this notice. We are not opening for reconsideration any other provisions of the new source performance standards (NSPS) at this time.
Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through
In addition to being available in the docket, electronic copies of these proposed rules will be available on the World Wide Web through the TTN. Following signature, a copy of this proposed rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
On August 16, 2012, the EPA published the Oil and Natural Gas Sector NSPS (40 CFR part 60 subpart OOOO) in the
Today, we are granting reconsideration of, proposing and requesting comment on the following limited set of issues raised in the petitions described above: (1) Provisions for well completions that clarify existing requirements for handling of flowback gases and liquids; (2) definition of “low pressure gas well” ; (3) requirements pertaining to determining the potential emission of storage vessels that employ vapor recovery; (4) requirements for thief hatches; (5) provisions for storage vessels that are removed from service; (6) routing of emissions from reciprocating compressor rod packing to a process; (7) leak detection requirements at small natural gas processing plants and natural gas processing plants located on the Alaskan North Slope; (8) equipment subject to leak detection requirements under the NSPS; and (9) definition of “responsible official” for compliance certification purposes. In addition, we are proposing to remove the affirmative defense provisions from the startup, shutdown and malfunction provisions of the 2012 NSPS. Finally, we are proposing to correct technical errors in the 2012 NSPS.
This notice is limited to the specific issues identified in this notice. We will not respond to any comments addressing any other provisions of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector NSPS. We will address any other issues for which we intend to grant reconsideration at a later time.
The impacts of today's proposed revisions on the costs and the benefits of the final rule are minor, but cost-saving. We expect that affected facility owners and operators will install and operate the same or similar control technologies to meet the proposed revised standards in this notice as they would have chosen to comply with the standards in the August 2012 final rule, and revisions to the rule will not significantly impact emission reductions.
The purpose of this action is to propose amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO, Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution. This proposal was developed to address certain issues primarily related to well completion and storage vessel provisions that have been raised by different stakeholders through several administrative petitions for reconsideration of the 2012 NSPS and the 2013 storage vessel amendments to the NSPS. The EPA is proposing to amend the NSPS to address these issues.
We are proposing to amend the standards for gas well affected facilities to provide greater clarity concerning what owners and operators must do during well completion operations, especially the provisions for reduced emissions completions which have a compliance date of January 1, 2015. While the 2012 NSPS focused mainly on handling of flowback emissions, we did not provide extensive detail concerning requirements for handling of liquids during the well completion operation. In this action, we are proposing to identify three distinct stages of a well completion operation and specific requirements for handling of gases and liquids for each stage. The “initial flowback stage” begins with the onset of
We are re-proposing for comment the definition of “low pressure gas well,” as related to the well completion provisions. We added this definition in the 2012 NSPS in response to public comments. Petitioners asserted that the definition is unnecessarily complicated and would pose difficulty for smaller operators. The petitioners provided a very straightforward alternative on which we are also soliciting comment.
We are proposing several amendments related to the storage vessel provisions of the NSPS. First, we are proposing to amend the provisions for determining PTE for storage vessels with vapor recovery to clarify that the provisions allowing sources to exclude emissions captured through vapor recovery if certain specified control requirements are met do not apply to storage vessels whose PTE is limited to below the 6 tons per year (tpy) applicability threshold under a legally and practically enforceable permit or other limitation under federal, state or tribal authority. We are also proposing to amend the storage vessel closed cover requirements to allow other mechanisms besides weighted lid thief hatches to ensure that the thief hatch lid remains properly seated. In addition, we are proposing to amend slightly the requirements for storage vessels to clarify notification and other requirements under the NSPS for storage vessels that are removed from service.
We are proposing to amend the requirements for reciprocating compressors to add a third alternative to the two existing work practice options for controlling emissions from rod packing venting. We are proposing a third alternative that would be to route emissions from the rod packing through a closed vent system to a process.
We are proposing two amendments to the equipment leaks requirements for natural gas processing plants. One is to correct an inadvertent omission we made in the 2012 NSPS concerning an exemption from routine leak detection in small gas processing plants and gas processing plants located on the Alaskan North Slope. In the 2012 NSPS, we inadvertently failed to include connectors in the list of equipment under this exemption. In addition, we are proposing to amend the definition of “equipment” to clarify that the term, as used in relation to the equipment leaks requirements under the NSPS, refers only to equipment at onshore natural gas processing plants.
We are proposing to amend the definition of “responsible official” that is used in conjunction with the compliance certification provisions of the 2012 NSPS. We are proposing to amend the definition of “responsible official” to provide for delegation of authority after advance notification rather than after approval, which is currently required for delegation to authorities responsible for facilities that employ 250 or fewer employees and have less than $25 million gross annual sales or expenditures (in second quarter 1980 dollars). Requirements for delegation to representatives responsible for one or more facilities that employ more than 250 persons or have gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars) are unchanged from the 2012 NSPS (i.e., there is no advance notification or approval required for such delegations).
Finally, we are proposing to remove the “affirmative defense” provisions from the startup, shutdown and malfunction provisions of the 2012 NSPS. We are also proposing to correct technical errors in the 2012 NSPS. Details and rationale for all the above proposed amendments are presented in section VI below.
As summarized above, the EPA is proposing to address a number of issues that have been raised by different stakeholders through several administrative petitions for reconsideration of the 2012 NSPS final action and 2013 storage vessel amendments. The following sections discuss the issues that the EPA is addressing in this action and how the EPA proposes to resolve the issues.
Several petitioners raised issues with regard to the well completion provisions in the 2012 NSPS, including handling of flowback gases and liquids and definition of “low pressure well.” While the 2012 NSPS focused mainly on handling of flowback gases, we did not provide extensive detail concerning requirements for handling of liquids during the various stages of well completion. The proposed amendments to the regulatory text discussed below provide clarity concerning what owners and operators must do during completion operations, and the proposed amendments to the requirements would maintain the same level of reduction as the 2012 NSPS.
The petitioners asserted that the rule is unclear with regard to requirements in § 60.5375 for handling of gases and liquids during flowback and that, as written, compliance with the existing language cannot be achieved. Specifically, petitioners asserted that § 60.5375(a)(1) which states “(F)or the duration of flowback, route the recovered liquids into one or more storage vessels . . . and route the recovered gas into a gas flow line or collection system . . . with no direct release to the atmosphere” could be interpreted to prohibit venting of gases at any time during the flowback period. According to petitioners, at the beginning of the flowback period, the flowback consists initially of water, fracturing fluids and proppant (sand) with no gas present. At some point, sporadic slugs of gas begin to appear in the flowback in increasing amounts until enough gas is present to approach flammability and to enable a separator to function. Petitioners explained that operators usually locate a monitor on the vessel receiving the initial flowback to sense the gas concentration. When the gas concentration approaches flammability, the flowback is then directed to a separator. For a separator to function, enough gas must be flowing to maintain a gaseous phase and one or more liquid phases within the separator. In addition, petitioners explained that the requirement to “route the recovered liquids into one or more storage vessels”
In the EPA's clarification letter to the American Petroleum Institute (API),
In light of petitioners' assertions and the confusion caused by the current regulatory language in the well completion provisions, we reexamined the regulatory text in § 60.5375 and concluded that more clarity is needed such that owners, operators, regulatory agencies and the public could readily understand what was required at various stages of a hydraulically fractured well completion operation.
We believe that the requirements of the rule would be easier to understand if the rule identified distinct stages associated with well completion, with each stage having specific requirements for handling of gases and liquids. To that end, we are proposing that each well completion subject to § 60.5375 consists of three distinct stages.
The first stage begins with the first flowback from the well following hydraulic fracturing or refracturing, and is characterized by high volumetric flow water, with sand, fracturing fluids and debris from the formation with very little gas being brought to the surface, usually in multiphase slug flow. As the flowback proceeds, the amount of gas appearing in the flowback increases to the point where there is enough gas present for a separator to function, at which time the well completion would enter the second stage. We are proposing that the first stage be defined as the “initial flowback stage,” during which the flowback must be routed to a “well completion vessel” that can be an open top frac tank, a lined pit or any other vessel. During the initial flowback stage, there would be no requirement for controlling emissions from the tank, and any gas in the flowback during this stage could be vented.
The second stage would begin when the flowback gases and liquids are routed to the separator, which would be required as soon as sufficient gas is present for the separator to function. This stage, which we propose to define as the “separation flowback stage,” is characterized by the separator operating (i.e., there is sufficient gas in the flowback to maintain a gaseous phase and one or more liquid phases in the separator). During the separation flowback stage, the operator would be required to route the recovered gas into a gas flow line or collection system, re-inject the recovered gas into the well or another well, use the recovered gas as an on-site fuel source or use the recovered gas for another useful purpose that a purchased fuel or raw material would serve. If, during the separation flowback stage, it was technically infeasible to route the recovered gas to a flow line or collection system (e.g., if there was no flow line or other infrastructure available at the site for collection of the gas), reinject the gas or use the gas as fuel or for other useful purpose, the recovered gas (i.e., “flowback emissions”) would have to be combusted using a completion combustion device. No direct venting of recovered gas would be allowed during the separation flowback stage. If, at any time during the separation flowback stage, the recoverable gas present in the flowback becomes insufficient to maintain operation of the separator, the operation would revert to the initial flowback stage until the gas was again present in sufficient volume to operate the separator. During the separation flowback stage, all liquids from a separator could be directed to one or more well completion vessels or storage vessels, or be re-injected into the well or another well (i.e., during this stage, operators would not be required to route flowback liquids to “storage vessels” as defined in the NSPS). During this stage of a completion, the flowback continues to have a very high volumetric flow rate, with the hydrocarbon content (and potential to emit VOC) often increasing
We are proposing that the beginning of the production stage would also begin the 30-day period for determining VOC potential to emit for purposes of making a storage vessel affected facility determination in accordance with the procedure in § 60.5365(e). If the criteria under § 60.5365(e) were met, the operator would have to comply with the control requirements in § 60.5395(d)(1) within 60 days after the beginning of the production stage. We are proposing to amend § 60.5365(e) to reflect that, for purposes of the well completion provisions, the 30-day period for the affected facility determination required § 60.5365(e) would commence at the beginning of the production stage. We are proposing to amend § 60.5395(d)(1)(i) to reflect that, for purposes of the well completion provisions, control would be required no later than 60 days from the beginning of the production stage. We propose revising § 60.5395(d)(1)(i) to read:
In addition, we are proposing amendments to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in § 60.5420 to revise the terminology used in that section relating to periods of recovery, combustion and venting to be compatible with the terms identified in the proposed clarifying amendments to § 60.5375.
Similarly, we are proposing revisions to the terms used in the regulatory text for exploratory, delineation and low pressure wells at § 60.5375(f) to be consistent with the proposed amended terminology and requirements in § 60.5375(a).
Petitioners also raised the issue of “screenouts” and “coil tubing cleanouts,” which are remedial operations sometimes required during flowback when flow is impeded or blocked by packed proppant (sand) and must be restored to prevent permanent damage to the well. As related in petitions, a screenout is the first attempt to clear the proppant that can plug the wellbore. A screenout involves flowing the well to a frac tank in a manner to achieve maximum velocity to carry the sand out of the well. If a screenout is unsuccessful in clearing the packed sand from the wellbore, then the well typically is “jetted” using a string of coil tubing and nitrogen gas to dislodge the sand and provide sufficient lift energy to flow it to surface. Small amounts of gas and condensate may be part of the flowback fluids during screenouts and coil tubing cleanouts. In our clarification letter to API, we explained that any gas or vapor liberated during screenouts and coil tubing cleanouts, both of which are operations prior to the point of separation, were not “flowback emissions”
In the August 23, 2011, proposed rule, the EPA solicited comments on situations where reduced emission completion (REC) would be infeasible (see 76 FR 52758, August 23, 2011). Several commenters highlighted technical issues that prevent the implementation of a REC on what they referred to as “low pressure” gas wells because of the lack of the necessary reservoir pressure to flow at rates appropriate for the transportation of solids and liquids from a hydraulically fractured gas well completion against an imposed back-pressure. Based on our analysis of the public comments received, we learned that there are certain wells where a REC is infeasible because of the characteristics of the reservoir and the well depth that will not allow the flowback to overcome the gathering system pressure due to the back pressure imposed by the REC surface equipment. Accordingly, in response to those comments, we provided in the 2012 final NSPS at § 60.5375(f) that “low pressure” gas wells (i.e., those wells for which a REC would not be feasible because of a combination of well depth, reservoir pressure and flow line pressure) would not be required to meet the requirements for recovery of gases and liquids required under § 60.5375(a), except as provided in § 60.5375(f)(2) which subjects wildcat, delineation and low pressure gas wells to requirements for combustion of flowback emissions and to the general duty to safely maximize resource recovery and minimize releases to the atmosphere required under § 60.5375(a)(4). Under the 2012 final NSPS, low pressure wells are treated the same as exploratory and delineation wells (i.e., they are not required to perform a REC). We also added a definition of “low pressure gas well” in the final rule that is based on a mathematical formula that takes into account a well's depth, reservoir pressure and flow line pressure. The definition at § 60.5430 is as follows:
A detailed discussion of development of the definition and derivation of the formula was provided in the Supplemental Technical Support Document for the 2012 final rule.
Following publication of the final rule, a group of petitioners representing independent oil and natural gas owners and operators submitted a joint petition for administrative reconsideration of the 2012 NSPS. The petitioners questioned the technical merits of the low pressure well definition and asserted that the public had not had an opportunity to comment on the definition because it was added in the final rule. The petitioners expressed concern that the formula adopted in the 2012 NSPS was based on “questionable assumptions” and “sparse data” and will “exclude from its scope many gas wells drilled in formations that historically have been
On March 24, 2014, the petitioners submitted to the EPA a suggested alternative definition
We agree with the petitioners that this alternative definition is straightforward and easy to use. However, we are concerned that it may be too simplistic and may not adequately account for the parameters that must be taken into account when determining whether a REC would be feasible for a given hydraulically fractured gas well. Further, we question how an operator would know before flowback begins that the flowback period would be less than 3 days in duration.
We believe that, to determine whether the flowback gas has sufficient pressure to flow into a flow line, it is necessary to account for reservoir pressure, well depth and flow line pressure. In addition, it is important for any such determination to take into account pressure losses in the surface equipment used to perform the REC. The EPA's proposed definition was developed to account for these factors.
We further disagree with the petitioners' assertion that the EPA definition is too complicated. We believe that values for each of the three parameters discussed above and used in the EPA definition are known by operators in advance of flowback and that the relatively simple calculation called for in the EPA definition could be performed with a basic hand-held calculator and should not pose difficulty or hardship for smaller operators.
However, we agree with the petitioners that the public should be provided an opportunity to comment on the 2012 definition of “low pressure gas well.” We are therefore re-proposing that definition for notice and comment. In addition, we solicit comment on the definition suggested by the petitioners. The petitioners' background paper and supporting documents for the alternative definition have been placed in the public docket for this action. We believe that soliciting comments on both definitions would help us better understand and characterize the term “low pressure gas well” for which REC is not feasible.
On September 23, 2013, the EPA published amendments primarily focused on storage vessel implementation issues raised by petitioners following publication of the 2012 final NSPS. Following publication of the 2013 storage vessel amendments, three petitioners raised issues with regard to various provisions of the amendments. Among these issues are requirements for determining PTE for storage vessels employing vapor recovery under a legal and practically enforceable limitation, requirement for thief hatches being properly seated and clarification of the term “storage vessels removed from service.”
In the 2013 final storage vessel amendments to the NSPS, we provided at § 60.5365(e) that the determination of a storage vessel's VOC PTE may take into account requirements under a legally and practically enforceable limit in an operating permit or other requirement established under a federal, state, local or tribal authority. We further provided that any vapor from the storage vessel that is recovered and routed to a process through a vapor recovery unit (VRU) designed and operated as specified in § 60.5365(e) is not required to be included in the determination of VOC PTE.
In petitions for reconsideration of the storage vessel amendments, petitioners pointed out that, if a VRU is required by a legally and practically enforceable limitation under which the storage vessel is operating, then § 60.5365(e)(1) through (4) should not apply. The petitioners explained that, in such cases, removal of the VRU would violate the enforceable limitation, thereby making the prior affected facility determination of VOC PTE invalid. They further assert their understanding that the EPA intended that § 60.5365(e)(1) through (4) should apply only to storage vessels which are not under a legal and practically enforceable limit but which are employing vapor recovery to lower the VOC PTE.
§ 60.5365(e) allows an owner or operator of a storage vessel to exclude from its PTE determination any vapor routed to a process through a VRU provided that conditions in § 60.5365(e)(1) through (4), which relate to the design and operation of cover and closed vent system associated with the VRU, are met (hereinafter referred to as the “PTE exclusion provision”). However, this is not the only way for a storage vessel to demonstrate that its PTE is below the 6 tpy threshold. As stated in the 2013 amendment and reiterated above, a storage vessel's PTE determination can take into account requirements under a legally and practically enforceable limit in an operating permit or other requirement established under a federal, state, local or tribal authority. However, it appears that there may be misinterpretation of the PTE exclusion provision as requiring compliance with § 60.5365(e)(1) through (4) in all cases, even where a storage vessel has VOC PTE less than 6 tpy under a legally and practically enforceable limit in an operating permit or other requirement established under a Federal, state, local or tribal authority. Under such a permit or limitation, an operator therefore does not need to invoke the NSPS PTE exclusion provision. Further, we conclude that the PTE exclusion provision would only be invoked by a storage vessel absent any legally and practically enforceable limit under which the storage vessel was being operated to maintain its VOC PTE less than 6 tpy.
In light of the points raised by the petitioners and considering the EPA's original intent, we are proposing to amend § 60.5365(e) to allow the PTE exclusion provision only in cases where
For storage vessels not subject to a legally and practically enforceable limit in an operating permit or other requirement established under a federal, state, local or tribal authority, any vapor from the storage vessel that is recovered and routed to a process through a VRU designed and operated as specified in this section is not required to be included in the determination of VOC potential to emit for purposes of determining affected facility status, provided you comply with the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
Thief hatches are generally hinged access openings in the roof of storage vessels that serve as emergency overpressure relief devices and a point of access for obtaining a sample of the material stored or for gauging the liquid level. To be functional, the thief hatch must be able to open when access is needed, yet close and seal properly to prevent vapor at very low pressure from escaping. The hatch must be able to open readily during overpressure events to prevent damage to the storage vessel. Storage vessels used in this industry sector are generally designed to operate at atmospheric pressure. The 2012 final NSPS requires at § 60.5411(b)(3) that thief hatches be “weighted and properly seated.”
Petitioners asserted that the requirement for the thief hatch lid to be “weighted” is too restrictive, since there are other types and mechanisms that provide the same functionality (i.e., the lid presses on the seating surface with sufficient force to ensure proper seating while allowing opening manually for personnel access or automatically during overpressure events) as a weighted lid thief hatch. The petitioners requested that the NSPS be revised to allow the use of other types (e.g., hatches with spring-loaded lids) besides weighted-lid hatches.
We agree with the petitioners that other mechanisms that would provide equivalent function to that provided by a weight should be allowed for thief hatch lid control, since the important factor here is to ensure that the hatch lid remains properly closed, whether with a weight or another mechanism, at all times except during personnel access and overpressure events. As a result, we are proposing to amend § 60.5411(b)(3) to require that the thief hatch be equipped with a mechanism or be of such design and properly maintained and operated to ensure that the lid remains properly seated.
The 2013 final storage vessel amendments to the NSPS added provisions at § 60.5395(f) that apply to storage vessel affected facilities that are removed from service. Provisions are also included for storage vessel affected facilities that are later returned to service.
Petitioners assert that the provisions for storage vessel affected facilities that are removed from service need clarification to avoid misinterpretation that the NSPS requires reporting of every instance of a storage vessel being temporarily shut down for maintenance. In addition, petitioners requested that the EPA provide clarity by adding a definition of “removed from service.” Petitioners also requested that § 60.5395(f) state explicitly that a storage vessel affected facility that is removed from service is no longer subject to the control, reporting or recordkeeping requirements of the NSPS, other than reporting that it has been removed from service, until such time as it is subsequently returned to service. Petitioners also suggested that the required notifications include the date that the storage vessel-affected facility is removed from service or restored to service to assist in documenting the period of time for which the NSPS did not apply to a given storage vessel-affected facility.
We reexamined § 60.5395(f) and propose to clarify the requirements regarding storage vessel affected facilities removed from service to avoid potential misinterpretation of these requirements. Our intent in including such provisions in the 2013 storage vessel amendments was to ensure that unnecessary burden was not imposed by the NSPS by requiring emission control, compliance monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping activities for storage vessels that were removed from service for reasons other than maintenance. Based on our review, we are proposing to add a definition of “removed from service” to § 60.5430 as follows:
We are also proposing to amend § 60.5395(f)(1) and (2), and § 60.5420(b)(6) to require that the dates that storage vessel-affected facilities are removed from service and returned to service be included when reporting those actions.
The 2012 final NSPS requires a continuous pilot flame for well completion combustion devices and for combustors used to control emissions from storage vessels and wet seal centrifugal compressors. Commenters on the 2011 proposed NSPS and NESHAP had asserted that these rules should allow the use of automatic electronic spark ignition as an alternative to a continuous pilot flame for these control devices. In our response to public comments, we had clarified that the rule does not allow electronic ignition devices as surrogates for a continuous ignition source. The continuous ignition source is designed to combust the flammable portion of the flowback gas from a well completion, even if the flowback gas has a low BTU content. We further explained that an electronic ignition device designed for ignition of a combustible stream would not be successful at combusting VOC portions of low BTU flowback gas. With regard to storage vessels, we acknowledged the growing use of electronic spark ignition systems for flares. We explained that, however, given the intermittent and inconsistent nature of emissions from tanks in this industry combined with the highly variable VOC concentration in the emissions, we did not believe a spark-ignited flare would achieve the same level of emission reduction as a flare with a continuous flame present. We also noted that there were not sufficient data at this time to suggest that electronic ignition systems on combustion devices are capable of continuously supplying a constant source of ignition to keep a flame present on a continuous basis. In addition, for flares, test data for which the current standards in §§ 63.11(b) and 60.18 were written show that operating a flare with a continuously lit pilot adds an additional degree of flame stability to
The issue was raised by petitioners in response to the 2012 final NSPS in the context of completion combustion devices, but petitioners did not provide additional data or information to refute EPA's rationales for not allowing electronic spark ignition in the 2012 Final NSPS, as described above. The issue was raised again in public comments received on the 2013 proposed storage vessel amendments without additional data or information. However, the commenters asserted that the EPA's own Natural Gas Star program encourages the use of electronic ignition instead of a continuous pilot flame.
The EPA encourages innovation and also believes that resource conservation should be encouraged where possible. We believe electronic spark ignition is a promising technology, and for that reason highlighted it in the Natural Gas STAR publication cited by the petitioners. However, we still have concerns about the dependability of these devices and control efficiency afforded by this technology and would like to have more information that could inform further consideration of the petitioners' assertions.
We solicit information that would inform our evaluation of this technology as an alternative to a continuous pilot flame used with combustion devices for control of emissions from well completions, storage vessels and centrifugal compressor wet seal degassing systems. Specifically we solicit information, including any test data or other documentation, that may help address the following topics relative to the operation of an electronic spark ignition: (1) Appropriate design, operation and maintenance procedures to ensure proper combustion of the waste stream; (2) use of safety valves to ensure that no gas is available for combustion if the ignition system is not functional; (3) measures that could be taken to avoid vapor venting upstream of the control device in cases where the safety valve remains closed; (4) frequency of monitoring for proper operation; (5) specific checks to be made to ensure proper operation; (6) operating parameters that affect pilot-less flare performance and flare flame stability; (7) effects of gas with low BTU content or gas of variable VOC content; and (8) how often these systems need to be replaced.
In addition, we are interested in learning more about the use of this technology as a means of ensuring that continuous flame pilots remain functional at all times. Therefore, we also solicit comment, including any supporting data or information, on whether automatic spark ignition relighting systems should be required as a means of ensuring that continuous flame pilots remain functional at all times.
Based on our evaluation of the data and comments received, we may provide language in the final rule that would allow electronic spark ignition as an alternative to a continuous pilot flame. We may also provide language in the final rule that would require automatic electronic spark ignition relighting systems.
The 2012 final NSPS includes operational (i.e., “work practice”) standards for reciprocating compressors to reduce emissions from gas vented from the piston rod packing as the rod moves during operation. The rule requires regular rod packing replacement every 26,000 hours of operation or, if the owner and operator elect, every 36 months.
On October 15, 2012, the Administrator received a petition for administrative reconsideration of the performance standards for reciprocating compressors. The petitioners asserted that an available alternative would reduce reciprocating compressor emissions to levels equivalent to, or better than, the emission levels achieved by the operational standard.
The petitioner requested that the EPA consider this alternative technology and that the EPA revise the provisions of Subpart OOOO to allow for this alternative to the operational standard. The petitioner pointed out that subpart OOOO already includes similar options for handling of vented emissions from centrifugal compressors and storage vessels and that similar alternatives could apply for reciprocating compressors as well. Access to similar technologically valid approaches should be an option for reciprocating compressors. The petitioner reasoned that such an option would provide emission reductions in excess of 99.5 percent attributed to the efficiency of the computer-controlled combustion of the engine and the recovery of the emissions under negative pressure produced by the engine air intake. The petitioner reasoned that emission reductions would be commensurate with or better than the reductions from the operational standard.
Finally, the petitioner asserted that alternatives to the reciprocating compressor operational standard were not adequately reviewed by the EPA and, in its response to comments document, the EPA addressed comments from the petitioner and others with little more than a passive response.
The EPA values innovation on the part of owners, operators and equipment vendors serving the Oil and Natural Gas Sector. We also believe that resource conservation should be encouraged where possible and that alternatives should be flexible enough, within the law, to provide opportunities for innovation and resource recovery. Under the 2012 final NSPS for reciprocating compressors, an owner or operator must either (1) replace the rod packing every 26,000 hours of operation; or (2) replace the rod packing every 36 months. Any other options considered would need to provide at least the level of emission control that the existing options provide. Based on our review of the information submitted by the petitioner, we conclude that the technology has merit and would provide equivalent or better emissions reduction
In light of the above considerations, we are proposing to revise § 60.5385(a) to reflect that a third option for controlling VOC emissions from the reciprocating compressor rod packing would be to capture the emissions and route them to a process. “Route to a process” was defined in the 2012 NSPS at § 60.5430 to work in conjunction with the standards for storage vessels and wet seal centrifugal compressors. By using the same term in the proposed third option, emissions captured from the rod packing would be treated the same as emissions recovered from a storage vessel or from a wet seal centrifugal compressor. Specifically, for example, in the petitioner's case, the compressor engine would be the “process” to which the emissions would be routed. Although we have used the petitioner's application as an example, we want to be clear that the third option would not be limited to use of the captured emissions as on site fuel. Similar to vapor recovery applied to storage vessels and wet seal centrifugal compressors, routing the emissions to a process would also include routing of the emissions to a flow line or other beneficial use.
As a result, we propose to amend § 60.5385(a) to read as follows:
(a) You must follow the requirements of paragraph (a)(1), (2) or (3) of this section.
(1) Replace the reciprocating compressor rod packing before the compressor has operated for 26,000 hours. The number of hours of operation must be continuously monitored beginning upon initial startup of your reciprocating compressor-affected facility, or October 15, 2012, or the date of the most recent reciprocating compressor rod packing replacement, whichever is later.
(2) Replace the reciprocating compressor rod packing prior to 36 months from the date of the most recent rod packing replacement, or 36 months from the date of startup for a new reciprocating compressor for which the rod packing has not yet been replaced.
(3) Route the rod packing emissions through a closed vent system that meets the requirements of § 60.5411(c) to a process.
We are also proposing to amend the closed vent system requirements in § 60.5411(a) and (b) to apply to reciprocating compressors in addition to centrifugal compressor wet seal degassing systems, to which those sections already apply.
The equipment leaks standards in the 1985 NSPS subpart KKK requires routine leak detection at natural gas processing plants for certain equipment, specifically pumps in light liquid service, valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service, and pressure relief valves from gas/vapor service. Subpart KKK provides for exemptions for pumps in light liquid service, valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service, and pressure relief valves in gas/vapor service from routine monitoring requirements at small natural gas processing plants (i.e., plants that do not have the design capacity to process at least 10 million standard cubic feet (scf) of field gas per day) and at natural gas processing plants located on the Alaskan North Slope. In the 2012 NSPS, we updated the subpart KKK standards by lowering the leak definition for valves from 10,000 parts per million (ppm) to 500 ppm and adding connectors to the list of equipment to be monitored. The revised standards, which are codified in subpart OOOO, apply to affected facilities at onshore natural gas processing plants that commence construction, modification or reconstruction after August 23, 2011. Except for the revisions described above, we retained the other provisions of subpart KKK by adopting the subpart KKK regulatory text, including the above mentioned exemptions, in the new subpart OOOO. However, in adopting the subpart KKK regulatory text on the exemptions, we inadvertently failed to update the equipment list to include connectors. As a result, connectors were not listed in § 60.5401(d) and (e) as exempt from the routine leak detection requirements at small gas processing plants and gas processing plants located on the Alaskan North Slope.
Petitioners pointed out that connectors had been added to the list of equipment for routine leak detection in subpart OOOO but had not been similarly added to the list of equipment exempted from routine leak detection at small gas processing plants and at gas processing plants located on the Alaskan North Slope. The petitioners requested that we amend the NSPS to correct this apparent oversight. We agree that this omission was an oversight and that it was not our intent for the 2012 NSPS to single out connectors at small gas processing plants and at gas processing plants located on the Alaska North Slope for routine leak detection while exempting the other equipment at these plants from such requirement. As a result, we are proposing to amend § 60.5401(d) and (e) to add connectors to the list of equipment exempt from routine leak detection at these plants.
Petitioners pointed out that the definition of “equipment” in § 60.5430 of the 2012 final NSPS could be misinterpreted to expand the scope of the equipment leaks program under subpart OOOO to cover beyond onshore-gas processing plants, which was the scope of subpart KKK. The term “equipment” is currently defined in § 60.5430 as follows:
As discussed above, the 2012 final NSPS subpart OOOO updated the 1985 NSPS subpart KKK by lowering the leak definition for valves from 10,000 ppm to 500 ppm and requiring monitoring of connectors. Otherwise, subpart OOOO retains the other provisions of the subpart KKK by adopting those provisions, including the definition of “equipment.” As mentioned above, the definition of “equipment” includes “any device or system required
The 2012 final rule requires certification by a responsible official of the truth, accuracy and completeness of the annual report. Petitioners pointed out that the definition of “responsible official” is not appropriate for the oil and natural gas sector due to the large number and wide geographic distribution of the small sources involved. Petitioners suggested that the EPA should develop a certification requirement specific to the Oil and Natural Gas Sector NSPS that would allow delegation of the authority of a responsible official to someone, such as a field or production supervisor, who has direct knowledge of the day to day operation of the facilities being certified, without requiring that such delegation be pre-approved by the permitting authority.
We reexamined the definition of “responsible official” and agree with petitioners that the current language in the NSPS, specifically the requirement to seek advance approval by the permitting authority of the delegation of authority to a representative if the facility employs 250 or fewer persons, is too burdensome for the oil and natural gas sector. The oil and natural gas sector, especially the production (i.e., “upstream”) segment, is characterized by many individually small facilities (e.g., well sites) with oversight typically by a production field office serving a large geographic area such as a basin. We believe a production supervisor or field supervisor who is in charge of a field office would be analogous to a “plant manager” in other sectors, because he or she is “responsible for the overall operation of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities” (from § 60.5430, definition of “responsible official”). We believe positions such as these are much closer to the day to day operations in this sector and would be appropriate to certify as to the truth, accuracy and completeness of annual reports and compliance certifications. However, because most oil and gas production facilities are small and therefore unlikely to have more than 250 persons, delegating the authority of responsible official to an oil and gas production supervisor or field supervisor would almost always require the permitting authority's approval.
We believe that the oil and natural gas sector is unique in that the ones with most knowledge of the facilities being certified are field or production supervisors overseeing such facilities, which are numerous across country but generally with few employees in each facility. As a result, requiring prior approval of a delegation of the authority of a responsible official because most of these facilities employ 250 persons or less is unnecessarily burdensome and may potentially affect the facilities' ability to comply with the certification requirement in the event there are delays in approvals of delegation. We therefore propose requiring advance notification instead of advance approval before such delegation becomes effective.
Petitioners also noted that the current definition does not adequately address the complex ownership arrangements of limited partnerships. We agree with the petitioners and believe limited partnerships should be reflected in the definition along with sole proprietorships and partnerships which are currently addressed.
In light of the considerations discussed above, we are proposing to amend the definition of “responsible official” to make such delegation effective after advance notification rather than after approval. Requirements for delegation to representatives responsible for one or more facilities that employ more than 250 persons or have gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars) are unchanged from the 2012 NSPS (i.e., there is no advance notification or approval required for such delegations).
In addition, the 2012 NSPS uses the term “permitting authority” in the definition of “responsible official.” The NSPS is not a permitting program, and the annual compliance certification that requires signature of the “responsible official” is a requirement of the NSPS and is not associated with a permitting program. As a result, we are proposing to replace the term “permitting authority” with “Administrator” in the definition of “responsible official” to be consistent with other notification and reporting requirements of the NSPS.
In the 2012 NSPS subpart OOOO, the EPA had included an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions. For the reasons provided below, we are proposing to remove the affirmative defense provisions in the 2012 NSPS subpart OOOO.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as “any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.” (40 CFR 60.2). The EPA has determined that CAA section 111 does not require that emissions that occur during periods of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law requires that the EPA anticipate and account for the innumerable types of potential malfunction events in setting emission standards. CAA section 111 provides that the EPA set standards of performance which reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through “the application of the best system of emission reduction” that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting standards based on the “best system of emission reduction.” The “application of the best system of emission reduction” is more appropriately understood to include operating units in such a way as to avoid malfunctions.
Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. The performance of units that are
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 111 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 111 standard was, in fact, “sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and was not instead “caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.” 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction).
Further, to the extent the EPA files an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
In the 2012 NSPS, 40 CFR 60, subpart OOOO, the EPA included an affirmative defense as an effort to create a system that incorporates some flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be violated under circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source. Although the EPA recognized that its case-by-case enforcement discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these circumstances, it included the affirmative defense in the 2012 NSPS subpart OOOO to provide a more formalized approach and more regulatory clarity.
Further, as the D.C. Circuit recognized, in an EPA or citizen enforcement action, the court has the discretion to consider any defense raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate.
Following publication of the 2012 NSPS and the 2013 storage vessel amendments, we subsequently determined, following review of the petitions and discussions with affected parties, that the final rule warrants correction clarification in certain areas. The EPA is proposing corrections that are editorial in nature, including typographical and grammatical errors, as well as incorrect dates and cross-references. Details of the specific changes we are proposing to the regulatory text may be found in the docket for this action.
Our analysis shows that owners and operators of affected facilities would choose to install and operate the same or similar air pollution control technologies under the proposed standards as would have been necessary to meet the previously finalized standards. We project that this rule will result in no significant change in costs, emission reductions or benefits. Even if there were changes in costs for these units, such changes would likely be small relative to both the overall costs of the individual projects and the overall costs and benefits of the final rule. Since we believe that owners and operators would put on the same or similar controls for this proposed rule that they would have for the original final rule, there should not be any incremental costs related to this proposed revision.
We believe that owners and operators of affected facilities will install the same or similar control technologies to comply with the revised standards proposed in this action as they would have installed to comply with the previously finalized standards. Accordingly, we believe that this proposed rule will not result in significant changes in emissions of any of the regulated pollutants.
This proposed rule is not anticipated to have an effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. As previously stated, we believe that owners and operators of affected facilities would install the same or similar control technologies as they would have installed to comply with the previously finalized standards.
We believe there will be no significant change in compliance costs as a result of this proposed rule because our analysis shows that owners and operators of affected facilities would install the same or similar control technologies as they would have installed to comply with the previously finalized standards.
Because we expect that owners and operators of affected facilities would install the same or similar control technologies to meet the standards proposed in this action as they would have chosen to comply with the previously finalized standards, we do not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in significant changes in emissions, energy impacts, costs, benefits or economic impacts. Likewise, we believe this rule will not have any impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets or the U.S. economy.
As previously stated, the EPA anticipates the oil and natural gas sector will not incur significant compliance costs or savings as a result of this proposal and we do not anticipate any significant emission changes resulting from this rule. Therefore, there are no direct monetized benefits or disbenefits associated with this proposed rule.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
A regulatory impacts analysis (RIA) was prepared for the April 2012 final rule and can be found at:
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Today's proposed rule does not change the information collection requirements previously finalized and, as a result, does not impose any additional burden on industry. However, OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (see 77 FR 49490) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0673. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
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 this rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business in the oil or natural gas industry whose parent company has no more than 500 employees (or revenues of less than $7 million for firms that transport natural gas via pipeline); (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 this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant
The EPA has determined that none of the small entities subject to this rule will experience a significant impact because the notice of reconsideration imposes no additional compliance costs on owners or operators of affected sources. We have therefore concluded that today's
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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose obligations upon them.
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. This proposal is a reconsideration of an existing rule and imposes no new impacts or costs. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from state and local officials.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the agency does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action has no impacts; thus, health and risk assessments were not conducted.
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to HAP from oil and natural gas sector activities.
This action 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 No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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.
The 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 proposal is a reconsideration of an existing rule and imposes no new impacts or costs.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(e) Each storage vessel affected facility, which is a single storage vessel located in the oil and natural gas production segment, natural gas processing segment or natural gas transmission and storage segment, and has the potential for VOC emissions equal to or greater than 6 tpy as determined according to this section by October 15, 2013 for Group 1 storage vessels and by April 15, 2014, or 30 days after startup (whichever is later) for Group 2 storage vessels, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph below. For storage vessels receiving liquids pursuant to the standards for gas well affected facilities in § 60.5375, including wells subject to § 60.5375(f), you must determine the potential for VOC emissions within 30 days after the beginning of the production stage as defined in § 60.5430. A storage vessel affected facility that subsequently has its potential for VOC emissions decrease to less than 6 tpy shall remain an affected facility under this subpart. The potential for VOC emissions must be calculated using a generally accepted model or calculation methodology, based on the maximum average daily throughput determined for a 30-day period of production prior to the applicable emission determination deadline specified in this section. The determination may take into account requirements under a legally and practically enforceable limit in an operating permit or other requirement established under a Federal, State, local or tribal authority. For storage vessels not subject to a legally and practically enforceable limit in an operating permit or other requirement established under Federal, state, local or tribal authority, any vapor from the storage vessel that is recovered and routed to a process through a VRU designed and operated as specified in this section is not required to be included in the determination of VOC potential to emit for purposes of determining affected
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) For each stage of the well completion operation, as defined in § 60.5430, follow the requirements specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this section as applicable.
(i) During the initial flowback stage, route the flowback into one or more well completion vessels and commence operation of a separator as soon as sufficient gas is present in the flowback for a separator to operate. Any gas present in the flowback prior to the separation flowback stage is not subject to control under this section.
(ii) During the separation flowback stage, route all liquids from the separator to one or more well completion vessels or storage vessels, or re-inject the liquids into the well or another well. Route the recovered gas from the separator into a gas flow line or collection system, re-inject the recovered gas into the well or another well, use the recovered gas as an on-site fuel source, or use the recovered gas for another useful purpose that a purchased fuel or raw material would serve. If it is infeasible to route the recovered gas as required above, follow the requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If, at any time during the separation flowback stage, the gas present in the flowback becomes insufficient to maintain operation of the separator, you must comply with (a)(1)(i) of this section. As soon as the rate of flowback has declined and stabilized enough to allow continuous recovery of the gas and to allow separation and recovery of any crude oil, condensate or produced water, you must comply with requirements for the production stage as provided in (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
(iii) During the production stage, separate and route recovered liquids to storage vessels. Route the recovered gas into a gas flow line or collection system, re-inject the recovered gas into the well or another well, use the recovered gas as an on-site fuel source, or use the recovered gas for another useful purpose that a purchased fuel or raw material would serve. During the production stage, recovered gas may not be vented or controlled by any combustion device.
(2) All salable quality gas must be routed to the gas flow line as soon as practicable. In cases where recovered gas cannot be directed to the flow line, you must follow the requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(3) You must capture and direct recovered gas to a completion combustion device, except in conditions that may result in a fire hazard or explosion, or where high heat emissions from a completion combustion device may negatively impact tundra, permafrost or waterways. Completion combustion devices must be equipped with a reliable continuous ignition source.
(b) You must maintain a log for each well completion operation at each gas well affected facility. The log must be completed on a daily basis for the duration of the flowback period and must contain the records specified in § 60.5420(c)(1)(iii).
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Each well completion operation with hydraulic fracturing at a wildcat or delineation well.
(ii) Each well completion operation with hydraulic fracturing at a non-wildcat low pressure gas well or non-delineation low pressure gas well.
(2) Route the flowback into one or more well completion vessels and commence operation of a separator as soon as sufficient gas is present in the flowback for a separator to operate. Any gas present in the flowback before the separator can operate is not subject to control under this section. You must capture and direct recovered gas to a completion combustion device, except in conditions that may result in a fire hazard or explosion, or where high heat emissions from a completion combustion device may negatively impact tundra, permafrost or waterways. Completion combustion devices must be equipped with a reliable continuous ignition source. As soon as the rate of flowback has declined and stabilized enough to allow separation and recovery of any crude oil, condensate or produced water, route the recovered liquids to storage vessels. You must also comply with paragraphs (a)(4) and (b) through (e) of this section.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(a) You must replace the reciprocating compressor rod packing according to either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section or you must comply with paragraph (a)(3).
(3) Route the rod packing emissions to a process through a closed vent system and cover that meet the requirements of § 60.5411(a) and (b).
(c) * * *
(2) Each pneumatic controller affected facility constructed, modified or reconstructed on or after October 15, 2013, at a location between the wellhead and a natural gas processing plant or the point of custody transfer to an oil pipeline must be tagged with the month and year of installation, reconstruction or modification, and identification information that allows traceability to the records for that controller as required in § 60.5420(c)(4)(iii).
The revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) For each Group 2 storage vessel affected facility, you must achieve the required emissions reductions by April 15, 2014, or within 60 days after startup, whichever is later, except as otherwise provided below in this paragraph. For storage vessels receiving liquids pursuant to the standards for gas well affected facilities in § 60.5375, you must achieve the required emissions reductions within 60 days after the beginning of the production stage as defined in § 60.5430.
(f)
(d) Pumps in light liquid service, valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service, pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service, and connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service that are located at a nonfractionating plant that does not have the design capacity to process 283,200 standard cubic meters per day (scmd) (10 million standard cubic feet per day) or more of field gas are exempt from the routine monitoring requirements of §§ 60.482-2a(a)(1) and 60.482-7a(a), and paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(e) Pumps in light liquid service, valves in gas/vapor and light liquid service, pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service, and connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service within a process unit that is located in the Alaskan North Slope are exempt from the routine monitoring requirements of §§ 60.482-2a(a)(1), 60.482-7a(a), and paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(d) * * *
(2) You own or operate a pneumatic controller affected facility located at a natural gas processing plant and your pneumatic controller is driven by a gas other than natural gas and therefore emits zero natural gas.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(3) Each storage vessel thief hatch shall be equipped with a mechanism or be of such design, and properly maintained and operated, to ensure that the lid remains properly seated. You must select gasket material for the hatch based on composition of the fluid in the storage vessel and weather conditions.
(c)
(d) Each control device used to meet the emission reduction standard in § 60.5395(d) for your storage vessel affected facility must be installed according to paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, as applicable. As an alternative to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, you may install a control device model tested under § 60.5413(d), which meets the criteria in § 60.5413(d)(11) and § 60.5413(e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(e)
(7) Ensure that each enclosed combustion device is maintained in a leak free condition.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) For each control device used to reduce emissions, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the performance requirements of § 60.5412(a) using the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section. If you use a condenser as the control device to achieve the requirements specified in § 60.5412(a)(2), you must demonstrate compliance according to paragraph (b)(2)(viii) of this section. You may switch between compliance with paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section and compliance with paragraph (b)(2)(viii) of this section only after at least 1 year of operation in compliance with the selected approach. You must provide notification of such a change in the compliance method in the next annual report, as required in § 60.5420(b), following the change.
(c) For each reciprocating compressor affected facility complying with § 60.5385(a)(1) or (2), you must demonstrate continuous compliance according to paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. For each reciprocating compressor affected facility complying with § 60.5385(a)(3), you must demonstrate continuous compliance according to paragraph (c)(4).
(4) You must continuously comply with the closed vent and cover requirements in § 60.5411(a) and (b).
The revisions read as follows:
For each closed vent system or cover at your storage vessel, centrifugal compressor and reciprocating compressor affected facility, you must comply with the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a) through(c) of this section.
(a)
(b)
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) Documentation of the VOC emission rate determination according to § 60.5365(e) for each storage vessel that became an affected facility during the reporting period.
(vi) You must identify each storage vessel affected facility that is removed from service during the reporting period as specified in § 60.5395(f)(1), including the date the storage vessel affected facility was removed from service.
(vii) You must identify each storage vessel affected facility for which operation resumes during the reporting period as specified in § 60.5395(f)(2)(iii), including the date the storage vessel affected facility was returned to service.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Records of the date and time of each reciprocating compressor rod packing replacement, or the date of installation of a closed vent system as specified in § 60.5385(a)(3).
(1) For a corporation: A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-making functions for the corporation, or a duly authorized representative of such person if the representative is responsible for the overall operation of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities applying for or subject to a permit and either:
(i) The facilities have gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars); or
(ii) The Administrator is notified in advance of delegation of authority to such representatives. The Administrator reserves the right to evaluate such delegation;
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: A general partner or the proprietor, respectively. If a general partner is a corporation, the provisions of paragraph (1) of this definition apply;
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: Either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. For the purposes of this part, a principal executive officer of a Federal agency includes the chief executive officer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency (
(4) For affected facilities:
(i) The designated representative in so far as actions, standards, requirements, or prohibitions under title IV of the Clean Air Act or the regulations promulgated thereunder are concerned; or
(ii) The designated representative for any other purposes under part 60.
(1) Vessels that are skid-mounted or permanently attached to something that is mobile (such as trucks, railcars, barges or ships), and are intended to be located at a site for less than 180 consecutive days. If you do not keep or are not able to produce records, as required by § 60.5420(c)(5)(iv), showing that the vessel has been located at a site for less than 180 consecutive days, the vessel described herein is considered to be a storage vessel since the original vessel was first located at the site.
(2) Process vessels such as surge control vessels, bottoms receivers or knockout vessels.
(3) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The purpose of this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) is to request public input on methods to reduce emissions from existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to consider the information received in response to the ANPRM in evaluating whether additional changes beyond those in the proposed revisions for new sources are warranted. MSW landfill emissions are commonly referred to as “landfill gas” or “LFG” and contain methane, carbon dioxide (CO
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
For information concerning this ANPRM, contact Ms. Hillary Ward, Fuels and Incineration Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) (E143-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3154; fax number: (919) 541-0246; email address:
This ANPRM addresses existing MSW landfills and associated solid waste management programs. Potentially affected categories and entities include those listed in Table 1 of this document.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated. The EPA is specifically requesting input on MSW landfills subject to state plans or federal plan (40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG) that implement the emission guidelines at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc. The EPA will also take this information into account in determining if additional changes to the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW are appropriate. If you have any questions regarding whether the EPA is seeking input regarding a particular MSW landfill, contact the person listed in the preceding
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the preceding section titled
The docket number for the review of the municipal solid waste landfills emission guidelines is Docket ID No.
In June 2013, President Obama issued a Climate Action Plan directing the EPA and other federal agencies to take a wide variety of significant steps to reduce methane emissions. The plan, which encompassed a wide range of actions and voluntary initiatives, recognized that methane emissions constitute a significant percentage of domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, highlighted reductions in methane emissions since 1990, and outlined specific actions that could be taken to achieve additional progress. Specifically, the federal agencies were instructed to focus on “assessing current emissions data, addressing data gaps, identifying technologies and best practices for reducing emissions, and identifying existing authorities and incentive-based opportunities to reduce methane emissions.”
The focus on reducing methane emissions reflects the fact that methane is a potent GHG with a global warming potential (GWP) that is 25 times greater than that of CO
In response to the directive in the 2013 Climate Action Plan, the “Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions” (the Methane Strategy) was released in March 2014. The Methane Strategy noted that the landfill standards at issue here and voluntary programs already in place have considerably reduced methane emissions, while creating jobs and improving public health. With respect to landfills, the Methane Strategy directs the agency to build upon progress to date through updates to the EPA's rules for reducing emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed landfills; to issue an ANPRM to explore options to address emissions from existing landfills; and to encourage energy recovery from LFG through voluntary programs.
The EPA has long recognized the climate benefits associated with reducing methane emissions from landfills. In the 1991 Landfill NSPS Background Information Document,
“An ancillary benefit from regulating air emissions from MSW landfills is a reduction in the contribution of MSW landfill emissions to global emissions of methane. Methane is a major greenhouse gas, and is 20 to 30 times more potent than CO
Since 1996, the EPA and the scientific community have gained a better understanding of GHGs, including methane, and their effects on climate change and human health and welfare. In 2009, the EPA Administrator issued the document known as the Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a)(1).
The EPA is reviewing the MSW landfills emission guidelines and in light of the President's Climate Action Plan, the Methane Strategy, and improvements in the science related to GHG emissions, is exploring opportunities to achieve additional reductions in emissions, including methane emissions. The EPA intends to issue a proposed review of the emission guidelines by March 2015 and take final action on the proposal by March 2016.
Landfill gas is a collection of air pollutants, including methane and NMOC. Landfill gas is typically composed of roughly 50-percent methane, 50-percent CO
The EPA is not statutorily obligated to conduct a review of the emission guidelines, but has the discretionary authority to do so when circumstances
The purpose of this ANPRM is to request public input on methods to reduce emissions from existing MSW landfills and to request input on potential resolutions or clarifications regarding issues that have arisen during implementation of the existing standards.
The EPA is considering changes to the emission guidelines for a number of reasons, including the following: (1) The opportunity to build on progress to date and achieve additional reductions of LFG and its components, consistent with the President's Methane Strategy, (2) changes in size, ownership, and age of landfills as reflected in new data, (3) new options for demonstrating compliance, and (4) the completion of efforts regarding implementation issues for which the EPA previously proposed resolution. The EPA is considering these topics in its review, as discussed in the following sections.
The EPA recognizes the opportunity to build on progress to date and achieve additional reductions of LFG and its components. A subset of existing landfills are controlled by either the landfill emission guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc) or by the landfill NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW). Controls installed as a result of these regulations have successfully reduced LFG emissions. Although methane emissions from landfills in 2012 are 30 percent lower than they were in 1990, methane emissions from landfills continue to be a concern. Despite these controls installed to date, in 2012, landfills emitted 102.8 teragrams (Tg) (or 102.8 million metric tons) CO
In this ANPRM, the EPA is exploring and requesting input on approaches that have the potential to achieve additional emission reductions from MSW landfills. Some of these approaches are adjustments to the current framework of the landfills regulations, others would complement the existing framework, and still others would be entirely outside the current framework. These approaches are presented in section IV of this document and include potential adjustments to the design capacity threshold; the NMOC emissions threshold; and the timing of installing, expanding and removing the gas collection and control system (GCCS). Approaches also include potential changes to emission threshold determinations, consideration of best management practices (BMPs), and new technologies that could improve collection and control of LFG emissions. The EPA will consider the input and data received on these approaches during the review of the landfills emission guidelines and determine whether it is appropriate to revise the emission guidelines to further reduce LFG emissions from existing landfills.
The EPA collected current data for the statutorily required review of the landfills NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. Three sources were used for that effort: A landfill and LFG energy project database maintained by EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), a voluntary survey of landfills, and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). The creation of the landfill dataset, including identification of the sources of the information contained therein, is detailed in the docketed memorandum, “Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014.” The EPA used the dataset, which included landfill-specific data such as landfill open and closure year, landfill design capacity, landfill design area and landfill depth, to examine the effects of potential changes to the size and emission thresholds for installing controls. The dataset also provides information on landfill practices such as liquids recirculation, waste composition, presence and type of GCCS and energy recovery projects. The availability of new data on MSW landfills is discussed in section II.D.2 of this document.
The EPA is considering and requesting input on potential options for demonstrating compliance. For example, the EPA is considering alternative wellhead monitoring requirements that could include exclusion or reduced frequency of temperature, oxygen/nitrogen monitoring requirements and whether such adjustments should be limited only to landfills that beneficially use LFG or should be available to all landfills, including small entities. The EPA is considering and requesting public input on potential approaches to surface emission monitoring. Approaches include changing the walking pattern that traverses the landfill, adding an integrated methane concentration measurement and allowing sampling only when wind is below a certain speed. These new options for demonstrating compliance are discussed in section IV.D of this document. The EPA will consider the input and data received on these approaches during the review of the landfills emission guidelines with the intent of further reducing LFG emissions from existing landfills.
The landfill emission guidelines were originally promulgated in 1996. Over time, the EPA has become aware of a
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111, which Congress enacted as part of the 1970 CAA Amendments, establishes mechanisms for controlling emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. This provision requires the EPA to promulgate a list of categories of stationary sources that the Administrator, in his or her judgment, finds “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
When the EPA establishes NSPS for new sources in a particular source category, the EPA is also required, under CAA section 111(d)(1), to prescribe regulations for states to submit plans regulating existing sources in that source category for any air pollutant that, in general, is not regulated under the CAA section 109 requirements for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or regulated under the CAA section 112 requirements for HAP. CAA section 111(d)'s mechanism for regulating existing sources differs from the one that CAA section 111(b) provides for new sources because CAA section 111(d) is implemented through state plans that establish “standards of performance” for the affected sources and that contain other measures to implement and enforce those standards.
“Standards of performance” are defined under CAA section 111(a)(1) as standards for emissions that reflect the emission limitation achievable from the “best system of emission reduction,” considering costs and other factors, that “the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” CAA section 111(d)(1) grants states the authority, in applying a standard of performance to particular sources, to take into account the source's remaining useful life or other factors.
Under CAA section 111(d), a state must submit its plan to the EPA for approval, and the EPA must approve the state plan if it is “satisfactory.”
The EPA issued regulations implementing CAA section 111(d) in 1975.
Over the last 40 years, under CAA section 111(d), the agency has regulated four pollutants from five source categories (i.e., sulfuric acid plants (acid mist), phosphate fertilizer plants (fluorides), primary aluminum plants (fluorides), Kraft pulp plants (total reduced sulfur), and municipal solid waste landfills (LFG)).
The Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (emission guidelines) are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc. The emission guidelines cross reference many provisions in the Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (landfills NSPS) (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW), including control requirements, operational standards, monitoring provisions, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. As a result, many of the proposed changes to the standards of performance for new, reconstructed, and modified MSW landfills could affect subpart Cc. A detailed summary of the current emission guideline requirements appears in section IV.B.1 of this document.
CAA section 111(d) calls for a partnership between the EPA and states, as described above. To recap, the EPA establishes source-category-specific emission guidelines that specify the minimum requirements for an approvable state plan, including the requisite level of emission reductions that must be achieved. Each state must
If the EPA were to revise the landfills emission guidelines to increase their stringency, then a landfill currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW would need to comply with the more stringent requirements in the revised state plan or federal plan implementing the revised emission guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc) as such sources would be existing sources with respect to the revised NSPS.
The EPA is concerned about LFG emissions because of the public health and welfare effects that result from these emissions. Landfill gas generated from established waste (waste that has been in place for at least a year) is typically composed of roughly 50-percent methane and 50-percent CO
Section 111 of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the Administrator's judgment cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(A)). On March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905), under the authority of CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), the EPA added the MSW landfills source category to the priority list in 40 CFR 60.16 because, in the judgment of the Administrator, the source category contributes significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. In that same document, the EPA promulgated the NSPS, which apply to new (including modified and reconstructed) landfills under the authority of CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), and emission guidelines, which apply to existing landfills, under the authority of CAA section 111(d).
The EPA also defined the MSW landfills source category, identified municipal solid waste landfill emissions (commonly referred to as LFG) as the pollutant for which standards should be developed, and determined the applicability thresholds and emission level of the standards.
An MSW landfill is defined in the landfills regulations as: “An entire disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household waste is placed in or on land. An MSW landfill may also receive other types of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle D wastes such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste. Portions of an MSW landfill may be separated by access roads. An MSW landfill may be publicly or privately owned. An MSW landfill may be a new MSW landfill, an existing MSW landfill or a lateral expansion” (40 CFR 60.32c and 60.751).
Household waste is the primary component of MSW, accounting for 55 to 65 percent of total MSW generated, followed by the commercial and institutional sectors.
Many changes have occurred in the landfill industry since the landfill emission guidelines were originally promulgated in 1996. Among the changes are changes in landfill characteristics and population (i.e., size, ownership, age); proliferation of LFG energy projects; and the introduction of
The data also show a trend away from public ownership. The share of sites that are publicly owned has decreased from 83 percent in 1984 to 64 percent in 2004.
A dataset of approximately 2,400 landfills resulted from the three sources listed above: The GHGRP, the LMOP database and voluntary survey of landfills. Of these 2,400 landfills, approximately 1,800 have sufficient data to use in the preliminary cost and reduction analysis as the EPA begins its review of the emission guidelines. The creation of the landfill dataset is detailed in the docketed memorandum, “Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations 2014.” Based on this dataset, several observations can be made.
The EPA estimates that the potential uncontrolled emissions from the approximately 1,800 landfills in its regulatory analysis dataset (as explained in section II.D.2 of this document) are approximately 66,400 Mg NMOC and 10 million Mg methane (258 million Mg CO
Looking beyond the modeled dataset, the 2012 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2012 shows a growth in uncontrolled emissions from MSW landfills, from 172.6 Tg CO
To estimate the emission reductions, the EPA applied the current design capacity and NMOC emission rate thresholds in the MSW landfills regulations, and the time allowed for installing, expanding and removing the GCCS to the modeled emission estimates discussed in section IV.B of this document.
Table 2 of this document summarizes the reductions currently being achieved at existing landfills in 2014 as a result of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and the federal and state plans implementing the emission guidelines. This table reflects the current baseline level of control at existing landfills: Landfills greater than or equal to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters (m
The emission guidelines in the baseline are estimated to require control at 559 of the 954 affected landfills in 2014 and achieve reductions of 49,600 Mg/yr NMOC and 7.7 million Mg/yr methane (193 million Mg/yr CO
Landfill owners and operators collect LFG for a variety of reasons: To control odor, to minimize fire and explosion hazards, to recover LFG to be used for energy recovery, to sell carbon credits, and to comply with local, state, or federal air quality standards. This section of this document discusses several non-EPA programs of which the EPA is aware. These reductions complement the reductions achieved by the current NSPS and emission guidelines framework.
The EPA is aware that some state or local ordinances require LFG combustion for odor or safety reasons. The number of landfills controlling under local ordinances is unknown. In addition, the state of California recently established methane regulations
LMOP maintains a voluntary national database of landfills and LFG energy projects, including information on which landfills have a GCCS in place. The EPA compared the list of landfills that are modeled to have installed a GCCS in 2014 in the NSPS/emission guidelines dataset to the list of landfills that are reported to have a GCCS installed in the LMOP database. While the NSPS/emission guidelines dataset estimates that approximately 550 landfills have installed controls to meet the requirements of the NSPS or an approved state plan or federal plan implementing the emission guidelines, the LMOP database shows approximately 500 additional landfills as having installed controls, resulting in over 1,000 landfills estimated to have a GCCS installed.
The pollutant regulated under the landfills NSPS is “MSW landfill emissions.” Municipal solid waste landfill emissions, also commonly referred to as LFG, are a collection of air pollutants, including methane and NMOC, some of which are toxic. LFG generated from established waste (waste that has been in place for at least a year) is typically composed of roughly 50-percent methane and 50-percent CO
In addition to the improvements in air quality and resulting benefits to human health and non-climate welfare effects discussed above, reducing emissions from landfills is expected to result in climate co-benefits due to reductions of the methane component of LFG. Methane is a potent GHG with a GWP 25 times greater than CO
As discussed in detail in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, climate change caused by human emissions of GHGs threatens public health in multiple ways. By raising average temperatures, climate change increases the likelihood of heat waves, which are associated with increased deaths and illnesses. While climate change also increases the likelihood of reductions in cold-related mortality, evidence indicates that the increases in heat mortality will be larger than the decreases in cold mortality in the United States. Compared to a future without climate change, climate change is expected to increase ozone pollution over broad areas of the U.S., including in the largest metropolitan areas with the worst ozone problems, and thereby increase the risk of morbidity and mortality. Other public health threats also stem from projected increases in intensity or frequency of extreme weather associated with climate change, such as increased hurricane intensity, increased frequency of intense storms, and heavy precipitation. Increased coastal storms and storm surges due to rising sea levels are expected to cause increased drownings and other health impacts. Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to these climate-related health effects.
As documented in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, climate change caused by human emissions of GHGs also threatens public welfare in multiple ways. Climate changes are expected to place large areas of the country at serious risk of reduced water supplies, increased water pollution, and increased occurrence of extreme events such as floods and droughts. Coastal areas are expected to face increased risks from storm and flooding damage to property, as well as adverse impacts from rising sea level, such as land loss due to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence and habitat loss. Climate change is expected to result in an increase in peak electricity demand, and extreme weather from climate change threatens energy, transportation, and water resource infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate ongoing environmental pressures in certain settlements, particularly in Alaskan indigenous communities. Climate change also is very likely to fundamentally rearrange U.S. ecosystems over the 21st century. Though some benefits may balance adverse effects on agriculture and forestry in the next few decades, the body of evidence points towards increasing risks of net adverse impacts on U.S. food production, agriculture and forest productivity as temperature continues to rise. These impacts are global and may exacerbate problems outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian, trade, and national security issues for the U.S.
Methane is also a precursor to ground-level ozone, a health-harmful air pollutant. Additionally, ozone is a short-lived climate forcer that contributes to global warming. In remote areas, methane is a dominant precursor to tropospheric ozone formation.
The EPA is considering several alternative approaches for achieving additional LFG emission reductions from existing MSW landfills. The EPA requests data and input regarding each of these approaches, or other alternative frameworks that should be considered for existing landfills. The EPA is specifically interested in input related to new technologies and data on costs and emission reductions for each of these technologies or practices. The EPA is also interested in ideas regarding how these alternatives may be incorporated into a regulatory framework for existing landfills. Sections IV.A through IV.F of this document describe and request input on alternative approaches for achieving additional LFG reductions from existing landfills.
Since the landfills regulations were implemented in 1996, the EPA has become aware of implementation issues for which landfill owners and operators, as well as regulators, need clarification. In this document, the EPA is also soliciting input on the implementation issues. Section IV.G of this document describes and requests input on these implementation issues.
In light of the Methane Strategy discussed in section II of this document, the EPA is seeking input on the extent to which methane should be addressed under the revised emissions guidelines. The EPA is also requesting input on potential implementation issues associated with any adjustments that could be made to the current rule framework or any alternative regulatory frameworks that may achieve a larger fraction of methane emission reductions from existing landfills than the current performance-based standard of a well-designed and well-operated GCCS.
The EPA is considering potential changes within the current regulatory framework of the landfills regulations for existing sources that would achieve further emission reductions. This section outlines the current framework and identifies potential adjustments to that framework. The EPA is requesting input on these potential adjustments, the degree of emission reductions that could be achieved, corresponding cost and implementation.
The landfills regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW require an MSW landfill with a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m
Without any changes to the framework of the rule, over 950 landfills are affected, and 691 are required to install controls on or before 2023. These current requirements are estimated to result in NMOC emission reductions of 55,000 Mg/yr and methane emission reductions of 8.5 million Mg/yr (213 million Mg/yr CO
Within the current framework of 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW, several parameters could be adjusted to potentially achieve additional emission reductions. Those parameters are the design capacity, the NMOC emissions threshold, and the timing of installing and expanding the GCCS. The EPA conducted a preliminary analysis as described below to estimate the emissions and cost implications of adjusting rule parameters. Modeling options that varied these parameters showed the following general incremental results as compared to the current regulatory framework over the next 10-year period (2014-2023). These preliminary cost-effectiveness values presented later in this section IV.B include the costs to install and operate GCCS as well as any revenue from energy recovery as discussed in further detail in the docketed memorandum, “Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014.” Installation, operation and maintenance of the GCCS represents over 99 percent of the annual costs, and although the costs presented here do not include testing and monitoring costs, those costs are expected to be nominal relative to the control costs.
Options that decrease the design capacity threshold would make more landfills subject to the rule. Such options also would increase the overall reporting burden because more landfills would be required to calculate and report their NMOC emission rates. Landfills that exceed any lower design
The EPA also explored decreasing the NMOC emission threshold in conjunction with decreasing the design capacity. Modeling showed that if the EPA decreased the design capacity threshold to 2.0 million Mg or 2.0 million m
In addition, if the EPA were to remove the design capacity threshold, then a significant number of additional landfills would be subject to the rule. Out of the approximately 1,800 existing landfills with sufficient data to include in the preliminary analysis for the review of the emission guidelines, over 850 have a design capacity of less than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m
Decreasing the NMOC emissions threshold would not change the number of landfills subject to the rule or affect the overall reporting burden. However, a lower NMOC emissions threshold would require more landfills to install controls. Although an NMOC emission threshold would continue to use NMOC as a surrogate for LFG, additional methane reductions could be achieved as a result of lowering the NMOC threshold, which is consistent with the President's Methane Strategy as described in section II of this document.
Modeling showed that if the EPA decreased the NMOC threshold to 40 Mg/yr NMOC, then approximately 80 additional landfills would require controls, resulting in additional NMOC reductions of 1,900 Mg/yr and methane reductions of 303,000 Mg/yr (7.6 million Mg/yr CO
As mentioned above, “lag time” is the period between when the landfill exceeds the NMOC emission rate threshold and when controls are required to be initially installed (or expanded) and started up. The emission reductions achieved by reducing the initial or expansion lag time are affected by the size of the landfill, waste placement patterns and annual acceptance rates. For example, the size of the landfill and the filling cycle affect how much and when emission reductions would be achieved. Based on input received from commenters,
Modifying the 5-year provision may also have a limited effect on emission reductions. Many landfills in wet climates are already installing wells ahead of the 5-year schedule for odor or energy recovery purposes. Modeling showed that if the EPA decreased the expansion lag time to 2 years, then an additional NMOC reduction of nearly 1,000 Mg/yr and methane reductions of 152,000 Mg/yr (3.8 million Mg/yr CO
The EPA received input from commenters expressing concern about the potential shortening of lag times. The comments indicated that wells located in these areas are more frequently damaged as a result of daily filling operations and the movement of equipment. Damaged wells must be repaired with well extensions and/or re-drilling of wells. In addition, waste in active fill areas undergoes significant settlement. This settlement affects the alignment of gas header equipment,
In addition to the implementation concerns, reducing the lag times would require more frequent mobilization of drill rig equipment and purchase of GCCS infrastructure and system repairs, which could lead to higher costs. Note the preliminary cost effectiveness estimates shown above do not include any cost adjustments to repair wells damaged in active areas. We seek input on how to account for these costs.
Commenters also raised several practical concerns with reducing the expansion lag time. Reducing the expansion lag time would result in more wells located in active fill areas because more of the face of the landfill is active after only 2 years of waste acceptance and the landfill owner or operator must add wells into these active areas sooner. In addition, active fill areas are still in the aerobic phase of waste decomposition. Installing wells in areas with high oxygen levels increases the chance of subsurface fires. It also leads to more frequent exceedances of the current wellhead monitoring standards for oxygen. The EPA requests input on the assumptions outlined above and whether or not adjustments to lag times should nonetheless be considered.
The EPA is aware of several horizontal collector installations, including several landfills in California
The shorter length of time associated with bringing horizontal collectors online can be especially important at landfills employing liquids recirculation techniques or located in wetter climates, given the higher LFG generation rates at those sites (as discussed earlier in this section IV.B.1). Quickly bringing these collectors online has added the benefit of proactively addressing odor concerns at landfills. These systems are also useful in landfills that practice “over-filling,” where new waste is placed on top of a section of the landfill that was capped temporarily. Some implementation concerns with horizontal collectors have been expressed, particularly regarding their shorter lifetime than vertical wells and the need for more frequent replacement.
The EPA requests input on the assumptions outlined above and whether adjustments to lag times should be considered.
The EPA is requesting input on the criteria and timing for capping or removing the GCCS. Under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, a landfill may cap or remove the GCCS if the following three criteria are met: (1) The landfill is closed; (2) the GCCS has been in operation for 15 years; and (3) three successive tests for NMOC emissions are below the NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg/yr. Depending on the waste-in-place of the landfill at closure and other site-specific factors (e.g., waste composition, climate), it may take greater than 30 years after closure for a large modern landfill to emit less than the 50 Mg per year NMOC emission threshold, and in turn qualify for capping or removing the GCCS.
Although some commenters expressed concerns about the quantity of emissions after landfills have closed and the GCCS has ceased to operate, the preliminary analysis the EPA conducted demonstrated that approximately 130 landfills that have closed or will close by 2023 will require a GCCS to be operated for between 15 and nearly 70 years after the landfill has stopped accepting waste. The exact length of the period after landfill closure is commensurate with the size and corresponding emissions profile of each affected landfill. Nonetheless, the EPA is requesting input on whether there are other ways to ensure emissions are minimized in the later stages of a landfill's lifecycle. Specifically, the EPA is seeking input on whether the three criteria listed above are appropriate. We also seek input on alternative approaches, such as consecutive quarterly measurements below a surface emission threshold. Note that RCRA, specifically subpart F of part 258, also requires supplemental basic post-closure care to maintain cover integrity, which includes cover material requirements, design criteria for final cover systems, and post-closure care such as maintaining the integrity of the final cover and maintaining and operating a gas monitoring system. The California landfill methane regulation
The California landfill methane regulation
The Climate Action Reserve also incorporated waste-in-place criteria in
The EPA requests input on whether it should pursue an alternative set of thresholds to determine which landfills are subject to the revised emission guidelines and what criteria trigger the installation of a GCCS.
The EPA also seeks input on whether it should consider reducing the design capacity thresholds or initial and expansion lag times for landfills that are located in a wet climate or that recirculate leachate or add other liquids to the landfills to accelerate decomposition of the waste. Wetter wastes decompose more quickly than drier wastes and as a result generate more LFG in the short term. Therefore, it may be appropriate to require these landfills to install and expand the gas collection system sooner. Similarly, smaller landfills in wetter climates, or those employing leachate recirculation (or other liquids addition), may also generate earlier spikes in LFG emissions that could exceed the NMOC threshold. Although these landfills are not affected by the current design capacity threshold of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m
If a separate set of thresholds and/or lag times were to apply to these wet landfills, or if an adjusted modeling provision were adopted (see section IV.E.1 of this document), the EPA requests input on how a wet landfill might be defined. For example, a wet landfill could be defined as a landfill that has precipitation of greater than 25 inches per year and/or recirculates leachate or adds other liquids to the landfill.
The EPA in this ANPRM is seeking input on options to achieve additional emissions reductions from existing landfills under CAA section 111(d). In light of our interest in reducing the methane and NMOC components of LFG, the EPA is also seeking input on whether it is reasonable to review the definition of modification for landfills. The EPA solicits input on changes that may be appropriate and whether these changes should be enacted to achieve additional emission reductions.
As mentioned previously, the EPA is considering potential changes within the current regulatory framework of the landfills regulations for existing sources that would achieve further emission reductions. This section discusses specific LFG control technologies and BMPs for GCCS and landfill operations to improve gas collection efficiencies.
The EPA is soliciting input to evaluate the emission reductions achieved by the specific technologies and BMPs discussed later in this section to assess whether any technologies and practices could be applied to the landfills regulations for existing sources to achieve further reductions of LFG.
The EPA will review the performance data, practical application, and cost of these BMPs or technologies to determine if and how they could be incorporated in conjunction with the current performance-based standard. Promotion of technologies and practices to achieve reductions of GHG from landfills complements the recently issued Methane Action Plan discussed in section II of this document.
The EPA is also requesting input on other technologies or BMPs that might be appropriate to encourage under the emission guidelines, the cost and emission reduction potential of each of these alternatives, and how each of these other approaches might be incorporated into the current rule framework or a new alternative rule framework.
The EPA is considering whether any emerging technologies may achieve additional emission reductions for existing landfills. As part of its consideration, the EPA will evaluate the extent to which the technology is adequately demonstrated for existing landfills.
The EPA is aware of several technologies that increase the methane oxidation rate, thereby reducing the amount of methane that could escape through the surface of the landfill. The principle of these technologies is the use of methanotrophic bacteria, commonly found in most soils and compost, to oxidize methane into water, carbon dioxide, and biomass.
A biocover is a cover material designed to enhance methane oxidation and is typically made of two layers—a permeable layer that consists of gravel, broken glass, sand or other media to evenly distribute the LFG to the oxidation media and an oxidation layer that typically consists of soil, compost, mulch or other organic media. The oxidation media contains methanotrophic bacteria from the waste decomposition process. One disadvantage of alternative cover technologies is their sensitivity to environmental conditions because the productivity of methanotrophic bacteria is highly dependent on the bacteria's surroundings. Certain conditions, including temperature, moisture and pH, must be maintained to optimize methane oxidation rates.
Methane oxidation occurs to some degree in various types of traditional landfill covers, including simple soil covers. Some landfills use compost, yard waste and other organic wastes and materials as a type of naturally occurring biocover. Chipped rubber tires, Styrofoam and yard waste are other common types of waste that could serve as good methanotrophic media when mixed with soil or compost.
The most common biocover in use at landfills is shredded yard waste used as alternative daily cover.
The MSW landfills subpart of the GHGRP (40 CFR part 98, subpart HH) had used a default value of 10 percent for the amount of methane oxidized when calculating methane emissions from MSW landfills. However, recent research studies indicate that a default value of 10 percent may be underestimating the level of oxidation occurring at existing landfills and the amount of methane oxidized may be considerably higher, depending on cover type and other site-specific conditions.
Biocover application costs may vary widely depending upon availability of material and the level of monitoring, and many materials would most likely be on site or easily obtained for free or for a nominal cost associated with transporting the materials from a nearby or co-located yard waste or compost facility.
RCRA Subtitle D addresses cover and capping requirements for MSW landfills. Specific requirements address the frequency and type of covers allowed, including provisions for requesting the use of alternative materials (40 part 258, subpart C). These operating parameters are in place to control disease vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter and scavenging at the landfill, but are not covers that specifically promote oxidation of LFG. Design criteria for final cover systems (40 part 258, subpart F) were also established to minimize water infiltration and erosion of the landfill, rather than release of LFG or its constituents. Rules regarding the use of daily, intermediate and final cover are governed by RCRA Subtitle D; however, research indicates that biocovers may help to reduce emissions of methane, a primary constituent of LFG.
Another method for increasing the oxidation rate is to route passively vented LFG through a vessel containing methane-oxidizing media, commonly referred to as a biofiltration beds or biofilters. Biofilter media have included compost or chipped yard waste mixed with recycled shredded tires or Styrofoam peanuts as well as sand and soil mixtures. Choosing the proper media with sufficient gas conductivity is important to reduce the possibility of back pressure in the landfill.
Biofilters are likely feasible for use at small existing landfills or existing landfills with passive gas collection systems due to the size of the biofiltration bed required to treat the mixture of air and LFG. Due to the nature of passive gas collection systems, this technology lacks the ability to control and monitor the oxidation of methane in the LFG.
No data exist on the long-term performance, effectiveness, or maintenance requirements of biocovers or biofilters.
The EPA is considering how certain BMPs that achieve additional emission reductions for existing landfills may be encouraged under a revised regulatory framework. The EPA seeks input on how to demonstrate that the BMPs are properly implemented and what additional maintenance records or other requirements might demonstrate that the BMPs can ensure the same level of environmental protection as the current framework. The EPA also invites input on other requirements that could be adjusted to encourage BMPs.
The EPA is aware of landfills that have connected the LFG collection system and leachate collection system; however, references suggest that connection of these systems is not common at landfills that do not employ leachate recirculation.
The cost of each connection of GCCS to a leachate removal system would include $400 to $650 for a LFG wellhead and $10 to $15 per foot for a 3- or 4-inch HDPE pipe (2008 cost estimates).
The EPA also seeks input on requiring a gas collection system to more proactively prevent waterlogged wells, perhaps through the use of leachate removal pumps or alternative GCCS infrastructure. Leachate and condensate can accumulate in collection wells, blocking LFG capture. Because a flooded well cannot collect gas, fixing a flooded well would have a high emission reduction potential.
The most practical and cost effective method for keeping liquid out of gas extraction wells is to prevent its entry in the first place by ensuring proper sealing and grading at the surface. Infiltration of leachate from within the waste mass is more difficult to control. Once liquid is inside the well, it often must be removed via pumping to restore the gas collection capability of the well. When performed in conjunction with effective leachate removal, it may be possible to dewater wells with a portable pump and a mobile storage tank that can be used to transport liquid removed from the well to a suitable leachate disposal point. Multiple iterations of dewatering could be required at each well because liquid often seeps back into the well after pumping. While labor intensive, this approach alleviates the need for a dedicated pump and piping at multiple wells. If liquid accumulation in wells is an ongoing issue, then a dedicated pumping system may be suitable. Long term costs for a dedicated pumping system are still high, including the initial cost of pumps and piping, as well as ongoing operation and maintenance costs and disposal of the leachate. A single well dewatering pump system could cost over $3,000,
Another method for reducing GHG emissions at landfills with waterlogged wells is to install a surface collector. A surface collector usually consists of perforated pipes laid across the top of the waste mass and covered by an impermeable geomembrane or by final cover. Surface collectors can be used to collect gas from a wet landfill where traditional horizontal and vertical wells fail due to water infiltration. Surface collectors can be used with or instead of horizontal collector systems.
Wellhead operating parameters in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW require that each owner or operator of an MSW landfill either operate the collection system with a negative pressure at each wellhead or, in areas with a geomembrane or synthetic cover, establish acceptable pressure limits in the design plan. These performance standards help identify any inoperable wells resulting from flooding. Surface emissions monitoring would also help identify any elevated methane levels resulting from an inoperable well. Because some of the wells at existing landfills may have been installed for 15 years or more, the EPA requests input on whether the current combination of wellhead monitoring and surface emission monitoring is sufficient for identifying inoperable wells, especially in cases where wells have been installed for a significant amount of time. If the monitoring systems in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW are deficient for identifying flooded wells, the EPA also asks for input on whether any additional recordkeeping, such as periodic measurement of liquid levels in gas wells, might be useful to identify flooded wells that are not collecting gas. The EPA requests input on whether any more specific corrective action guidance should be developed, such as the need to dewater the well or employ alternative GCCS technologies such as surface collectors if a flooded well is identified.
The EPA is also considering a BMP of requiring redundant seals and the use of enhanced sealing materials on wellheads. One study includes a survey using a forward-looking infrared camera suggesting that LFG wellheads and other surface penetrations present high potential for concentrated leaks of organic compounds.
Because a good seal is critical for proper well performance, multiple seals are often used. Many engineers already require two and sometimes three seals in a well when preparing design plans for GCCS.
Because the design plan is not prescriptive and instead contains design and operational standards that are site-specific, the design plan has the flexibility to determine the number or type of seals in order to accommodate the conditions and climates at different landfills. This site-specific approach also provides for continued flexibility for future design plans to incorporate new sealing materials that may be more efficient than those currently available. The design plan, coupled with wellhead and surface monitoring requirements, ensures that leaks from wells are minimized. The EPA is soliciting input on what mechanisms, if any, might be appropriate to further promote or mandate enhanced seals in this emission guidelines review.
Early installation of final cover systems can also reduce methane emissions. Current rules for landfills under RCRA Subtitle D require intermediate cover (typically at least 12 inches of native soil) to be installed in areas of the landfill that are no longer receiving waste or will not be used for over 12 months within 180 days of final waste placement (40 CFR part 258, subpart C). The final cover system must consist of an infiltration layer of at least 18 inches of earthen material covered by an erosion layer of at least 6 inches of earthen material that is capable of sustaining native plant growth. An alternative cover design may be used as long as it provides equivalent protection against infiltration and erosion (40 CFR part 258, subpart F). Once a landfill has received its final shipment of waste, it must begin closure operations within 30 days. A landfill, however, may delay closure for up to 1 year if additional capacity remains. Any further delays after 1 year require approval from the appropriate state agency. After beginning, all closure activities must be completed within 180 days.
Despite these rules, landfill operators often leave intermediate cover in place for years or even decades and intermediate cover frequently is the only cover on the majority of the landfill surface. Recent studies indicate that installation of intermediate and final cover has a direct and significant effect on LFG emissions.
LFG is a by-product of the decomposition of organic material in MSW under anaerobic conditions in landfills. The amount of LFG created primarily depends on the quantity of waste and its composition and moisture content, as well as the design and management practices at the site. Decreasing the amount of organics disposed in landfills would decrease the generation of LFG.
Organic materials are historically the largest component of materials discarded in the MSW stream, constituting nearly 49 percent of discarded material in 2012. Food waste is the largest portion of the organic materials, followed by paper and paperboard, yard trimmings and wood wastes.
Although material recovery has increased over time, states and cities with vigorous recovery programs have proven that a greater percentage recovery is possible. Organic waste diversion regulations and zero waste programs are currently in effect in multiple U.S. states and cities, with 183 municipalities providing separate curbside collection of residential food waste.
In the 1996 Landfills NSPS Background Information Document (page 1-25) the EPA “decided not to include materials separation requirements within the final rules because the EPA continues to believe RCRA and local regulations are the most appropriate vehicle to address wide-ranging issues associated with solid waste management for landfills.”
Although the EPA is not requesting input on mandating source separation under the upcoming emission guidelines review, the EPA is soliciting input and ideas for encouraging organic waste diversion under the revised emission guidelines, including the specific mechanisms described below and in section IV.E of this document or other ideas in general.
One method to encourage organic waste diversion under the revised emission guidelines is to provide rule exemptions for landfills diverting 100 percent of organic wastes. The emission threshold determination provisions currently in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW allow non-degradable wastes to be excluded from the total waste mass when computing the NMOC emission rate. If only non-degradable wastes were accepted, then the waste inputs for the model would be zero, the emission thresholds would not be exceeded, and thus GCCS would not be required. The EPA solicits input on the methane emission reductions from organic and inorganic waste diversion and whether adjustments should be made to the annual NMOC reporting requirements for landfills not accepting organic materials.
The EPA understands that the technologies, BMPs, and source separation practices discussed above can achieve reductions in emissions from landfills. The EPA is seeking input on whether the use of any of the technologies or practices discussed in this section in conjunction with a well-designed and well-operated GCCS should be considered as the EPA reviews the emission guidelines.
Section IV.E of this document discusses other mechanisms to encourage wider use of these technologies and practices such as emission threshold determination flexibilities.
Subpart WWW of 40 CFR part 60 currently requires all control devices other than enclosed combustion devices to demonstrate 98-percent reduction by weight of NMOC. Enclosed combustion devices have the option of reducing emissions to 20 ppm, dry volume of NMOC, as hexane. Both enclosed and non-enclosed flares as well as a suite of other energy recovery devices are used to meet the control requirements under the current regulatory framework.
Non-enclosed flares used at landfills meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 60.18(b) are thought to have destruction efficiencies similar to enclosed flares and incinerators, and devices that burn LFG to recover energy, such as boilers, turbines and internal combustion engines.
However, in April 2012 the EPA conducted an external peer review on flaring efficiency and made available to the public a draft technical report, “Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares.”
In addition to the technologies, BMPs, and other approaches discussed in section IV.C of this document, the EPA is considering whether alternative monitoring and reporting requirements would be appropriate for existing landfills. These alternative approaches address concerns that have arisen in implementation of subpart WWW and state and federal plans implementing subpart Cc and provide an opportunity to increase the effectiveness of the regulation.
The EPA is requesting public input on alternative wellhead monitoring requirements. Commenters have expressed concerns about the ability to consistently meet these parameters. One alternative monitoring provision could be in the form of an exclusion from the temperature and oxygen/nitrogen monitoring requirements, or a reduction in the frequency of monitoring. For example, the EPA could reduce the frequency of wellhead monitoring for these three parameters (temperature and oxygen/nitrogen) from monthly to a quarterly or semi-annual schedule. Owners or operators would continue to monitor the wellhead for negative pressure.
The EPA is specifically requesting input on whether any such adjustment should apply only to landfills that beneficially use LFG, and if so whether there should be a threshold for the quantity of LFG put to beneficial use above which sources would qualify for alternative wellhead monitoring (and below which they would not), or whether the beneficial use of any quantity of the recovered LFG should qualify for alternative wellhead monitoring. Alternatively, the EPA is requesting input on whether it would be more appropriate to require a certain percentage of the overall recovered LFG to be beneficially used in order to exempt landfills from or reduce the frequency of the wellhead monitoring requirements.
If EPA were to limit adjusted monitoring to landfills that beneficially use LFG, these alternatives could encourage new landfills to beneficially use LFG. Both of these alternative options (exclusion or reduced monitoring frequency) would provide monitoring relief to these landfills. Landfill owners and operators must continue to operate their GCCS in a manner that collects the most LFG and minimizes losses of LFG through the surface of the landfill. In addition, landfills would still have to prepare and submit to the regulating authority a gas collection design plan, prepared by a professional engineer.
Subparts Cc and WWW of 40 CFR part 60 require landfill owners and operators to operate each interior wellhead in the collection system with a LFG temperature less than 55°C and with either a nitrogen level less than 20
Given recent technological advancements in data storage and transmission, the EPA is also considering an alternative to automate the wellhead monthly monitoring provisions. Automation could reduce long-term burden on landfill owner/operators as well as state authorities by allowing for more frequent, but less labor-intensive, data collection through the use of a system consisting of remote wellhead sensors (i.e., thermistors, electronic pressure transducers, oxygen cells) and a centralized data logger.
The use of continuous monitoring would allow more immediate detection and repair. This would eliminate the time between when the exceedance of the parameter occurs and when it is detected. It could also improve enforceability of the rule by allowing inspectors to review information on the data logger in real time during a site visit. Another advantage to automating the monitoring is that it could provide flexibility for incorporating additional parameters into the monitoring program. The EPA is soliciting input on this alternative in general, including: (1) The types of parameters that are best suited for an automated monitoring alternative; (2) examples of successful automated monitoring programs at MSW landfills and their associated costs; (3) additional considerations for equipment calibration; and (4) input on any averaging times that might be appropriate to determine when one or more monitored parameters have been exceeded.
The EPA is requesting input on potential alternative approaches to the surface emission monitoring specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. Subpart WWW collection and control requirements are intended for landfills to maintain a tight cover that minimizes any emissions of LFG through the surface. The surface emissions monitoring procedures in subpart WWW require quarterly surface emissions monitoring to demonstrate that the cover and gas collection system are working properly. The operational requirements in subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.753(d)) specify that the landfill must “. . . operate the collection system so that the methane concentration is less than 500 parts per million above background at the surface of the landfill. To determine if this level is exceeded, the owner or operator shall conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30 meter intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of LFG, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover.”
Subpart WWW of 40 CFR part 60 includes provisions for increased monitoring and corrective procedures if readings above 500 ppm are detected. Instrumentation specifications, monitoring frequencies, and monitoring patterns are structured to provide clear and straightforward procedures that are the minimum necessary to assure compliance.
We are requesting public input on potential alternatives to the surface monitoring procedures in 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW. Potential alternatives could include provisions such as those in the California landfill methane regulation
We are requesting input on reducing the interval for the walking pattern that traverses the landfill from 30 meters (98 ft.) to 25 ft. We are also requesting input on the addition of an average methane concentration limit of 25 ppm as determined by integrated surface emissions monitoring. This would be in addition to the 500 ppm emission concentration as determined by instantaneous surface emissions monitoring. Integrated surface emissions monitoring provides an average surface emission concentration across a specified area. For integrated surface emissions monitoring, the specified area would be individually identified 50,000 square foot grids. A tighter walking pattern and the addition of an integrated methane concentration would more thoroughly ensure that the collection system is being operated properly, that the landfill cover and cover material are adequate, and that methane emissions from the landfill surface are minimized. As part of these potential changes, the EPA is also requesting input on not allowing surface monitoring when the average wind speed exceeds 5 miles per hour or the instantaneous wind speed exceeds 10 miles per hour because air movement can affect whether the monitor is accurately reading the methane concentration during surface monitoring. We are considering this change because measurements during windy periods are usually not representative of emissions.
We are also soliciting information and associated data on the cost and assumptions for conducting enhanced surface monitoring as described here. Several factors contribute to the cost of enhanced surface monitoring. Monitoring along a traverse with a 25 ft. interval would increase monitoring time, and, thus, the labor costs, compared to monitoring along a 30 meter (98 ft.) interval. Monitoring along the tighter traverse pattern would take approximately four times as long, because the distance is approximately four times when covering a 50,000 square foot grid. For a landfill to conduct the integrated surface emissions monitoring, the EPA assumes the landfill would rent a handheld portable vapor analyzer with a data logger. The data logger would be necessary to obtain an integrated reading over a single 50,000 square foot grid. However, the EPA does not expect that requiring an integrated methane concentration would add significant cost because landfills could use the same instrument that they currently use for the instantaneous readings. These instruments can be programmed to provide an integrated value as well as an instantaneous value.
The EPA recognizes that while these provisions could minimize surface emissions, the actual reduction in emissions is difficult to quantify. Surface monitoring is a labor intensive process and tightening the grid pattern would increase costs. Thus, the EPA is soliciting input on techniques and data to estimate the reductions associated with enhanced surface monitoring.
The EPA is also requesting input on allowing the use of alternative remote measurement and monitoring techniques for landfills that exceed the surface monitoring concentrations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc. The EPA
The EPA is requesting input on defining treatment system as a system that filters, dewaters and compresses LFG. This alternative approach would be consistent with public commenters on previous landfills documents (67 FR 36475, May 23, 2002; 71 FR 53271, September 8, 2006). It is also consistent with input from participants in governmental outreach, who stated that the extent of filtration, de-watering and compression can be site dependent, and that different sites require different levels of gas treatment to protect the combustion devices that use treated LFG as a fuel and ensure good combustion. The alternative definition of treatment system would allow the level of treatment to be tailored to the type and design of the specific combustion equipment in which the LFG is used. If treatment system was defined in this manner, owners/operators would need to identify monitoring parameters and keep records that demonstrate that such parameters effectively monitor filtration, de-watering or compression system performance necessary for the end use of the treated LFG.
Owners/operators would also need to develop a site-specific treatment system monitoring plan that would not only accommodate site-specific and end-use specific treatment requirements for different energy recovery technologies, but would also ensure environmental protection. Preparing the monitoring plan would document procedures that landfills are likely already following to ensure that the LFG has been adequately treated for its intended use.
The plan would be required to include monitoring parameters addressing all three elements of treatment (filtration, de-watering, and compression) to ensure the treatment system is operating properly for the intended end use of the treated LFG. The plan would be required to include monitoring methods, frequencies and operating ranges for each monitored operating parameter based on manufacturer's recommendations or engineering analysis for the intended end use of the treated LFG. Documentation of the monitoring methods and ranges, along with justification for their use, would need to be included in the site-specific monitoring plan. In the plan, the owner/operator would also need to identify who is responsible (by job title) for data collection, explain the processes and methods used to collect the necessary data, and describe the procedures and methods that are used for quality assurance, maintenance, and repair of all continuous monitoring systems.
The owner or operator would be required to revise the monitoring plan to reflect changes in processes, monitoring instrumentation and quality assurance procedures; or to improve procedures for the maintenance and repair of monitoring systems to reduce the frequency of monitoring equipment downtime. The EPA requests input on the definition of treatment system and the creation of site-specific treatment system monitoring plans.
Regulatory agencies and landfill owners and operators have expressed concerns about the burden and response time of agencies responsible for reviewing and approving design plans, Alternative Compliance Timeline (ACT) requests, alternative remedies and higher operating value (HOV) requests.
One way to minimize the need for such reviews would be to provide more flexibility in wellhead monitoring provisions, as described in section IV.D.1 of this document.
The EPA also solicits input on other ways to streamline the monitoring, reporting and notification provisions as part of its review of the emission guidelines. For example, currently the subparts Cc and WWW of 40 CFR part 60 require site-specific design plan review and approval procedures, recognizing the unique site-specific topography, climate and other factors affecting the design of a GCCS. However, the EPA solicits input on ways to streamline the design plan submission and approval procedures as part of its review of the emissions guidelines. Examples of streamlining may include the potential development of a process by which approved alternative operating parameters could be automatically linked to updates of design plans or development of a process by which alternative operating parameters and updated design plans could be approved on a similar schedule.
The EPA is also seeking input on the possibility of establishing a third-party design plan certification program. The third-party program would supplement or replace the current approach of requiring the EPA or state review and approval of site-specific design plans and plan revisions with a program by which independent third parties would review the design plans, determine whether they conform to applicable regulatory criteria, and report their findings to the approved state programs or the EPA (for states without approved programs). The program would be designed to ensure that the third-party reviewers are competent, independent, and accredited, apply clear and objective criteria to their design plan reviews, and report appropriate information to regulators. Additionally, there would need to be mechanisms to ensure regular and effective oversight of third-party reviewers by the EPA and/or states that may include public disclosure of information concerning the third parties and their performance and determinations. Utilizing a third-party certification program could help to standardize and expedite design plan reviews, and reduce the burden on state regulators. The EPA is considering a broad range of possible design features for such a program. Such features include those discussed or included in several articles,
We are considering the possibility of requiring sources to make design plans (including revisions) available online and easily accessible to the public as well as any impediment to doing so. We are also seeking input on what constitutes a reasonable time period for sources to make the design plans available online.
In addition to electronic storage of design plans, the EPA also plans to include electronic reporting in the forthcoming proposal that could amend subparts Cc and WWW of 40 CFR part 60 as a result of this review.
The EPA is considering adjusting the emission threshold determinations that dictate when a GCCS must be installed, including variations in the modeling parameters as well as adding site-specific emission threshold determination. These alternatives may provide additional reporting and compliance flexibilities for owners and operators of affected landfills, including those that use new technologies to increase oxidation of emissions, employ BMPs to increase the effectiveness of GCCS, or increase organics diversion and source separation practices.
An affected landfill currently has three different options (tiers) for estimating whether the landfill exceeds the NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg per year. The simplest of these, the Tier 1 calculation method, uses default values for the potential methane generation capacity (L
A revised rule could allow for alternative Tier 1 default values and modeling techniques based on the amount of organics in the waste. For example, the L
Subpart HH of the GHGRP also provides separate k-values for different types of materials, which could be used as alternate Tier 1 default values in revised emission guidelines. Sewage sludge and food waste have the highest k values, followed by garden waste, diapers, paper, textiles and wood and straw.
The IPCC model employs a modeling method to accommodate separate k and DOC modeling parameters as well as separate calculations for six different categories of organic wastes.
If the EPA pursues incorporating alternative Tier 1 modeling values in any revised emission guidelines, the EPA would also need to allow for an alternative first-order decay model structure to compute a total methane generation rate for the landfill based on the sum of the methane generated from each separate waste stream. This alternative model may incorporate material-specific k and L
The EPA also requests input on whether such an alternative modeling procedure would be limited to only those landfills that are employing organic diversion or source separation.
As indicated above, under the current emission guidelines, there are three different tiers available to an affected landfill to estimate whether the landfill exceeds the NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg/yr. If an affected landfill fails a Tier 2 test (i.e., the calculated NMOC emissions are greater than 50 Mg/yr), then the landfill must conduct Tier 3 testing or install and operate an active GCCS.
The EPA received input recommending the addition of a new Tier 4 surface emission monitoring (SEM) demonstration to allow increased flexibility for landfills that exceed modeled NMOC emission rates if they can demonstrate that site-specific methane emissions are actually low. This SEM demonstration would be conducted using procedures similar to those currently in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (see 40 CFR 60.755(d)). If the monitoring finds that methane emissions are below a level that the EPA adopts in the revised emission guidelines, then installation of a GCCS could be delayed.
As an example, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted the Methane Emissions from MSW Landfills regulation in 2009.
The EPA is soliciting input about this new Tier 4 option or other ideas for more flexible emission threshold determination “Tiers” and what implementation procedures may be appropriate for each determination. As the EPA takes this new Tier 4 option under consideration, there are some implementation procedures that would need to be established. The EPA requests input on all aspects of implementing a new Tier 4 option, including the following specific items: (1) Which areas of the landfill would be subject to SEM requirements because these areas would no longer be limited to areas with GCCS installed; (2) what number of exceedances over a specified time period would require GCCS installation (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW specifies a new well must be installed at three or more exceedances
The landfills included as part of this review include landfills that have accepted waste since November 8, 1987, and that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification before July 17, 2014. Table 3 of this document summarizes the closure patterns of the approximately 1,800 landfills potentially affected by 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW.
The EPA recognizes that existing landfills represent a wide range of points in the life cycle of a typical landfill. Approximately 39 percent of the existing landfills (707/1,832) closed prior to 2005 and those landfills collectively account for approximately 19 percent of the total waste disposed through 2014. Because these wastes were disposed of between 10 and 25 years ago, the LFG emission rates from these older sites are decreasing and have a significantly smaller contribution to emissions from this source category.
Given the wide range of points within a lifecycle that are represented by potentially affected existing landfills, and recognizing that some of the affected sites have not disposed of waste in over 25 years, the EPA believes that the implementation of any adjustments to the current framework or incorporation of alternative control frameworks or monitoring requirements may affect active landfills differently than inactive landfills. Therefore, the EPA requests input on how adjusting the current framework, selecting an alternative framework or modifying the monitoring requirements should be evaluated in terms of practicality, cost and emission reductions as these adjustments affect landfills of various ages and activity levels.
Since the landfills emission guidelines were promulgated in 1996, the EPA has become aware of a number of implementation issues for which landfill owners and operators, as well as regulators, need clarification. This section presents those issues and requests input on those clarifications and potential resolutions.
In this document, the EPA is soliciting input on what constitutes sufficient LFG treatment. In the
To determine whether NMOC emissions from nonproductive areas of a landfill are less than 1 percent of the total landfill NMOC emissions (and hence controls are not required), the landfills regulations (40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW) rely on
If a landfill exceeds a wellhead operating parameter, the landfill owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 5 days and follow the timeline in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW for correcting the exceedance. During implementation of subpart WWW, the question has been raised whether a landfill needs agency approval of corrective action timelines that exceed 15 calendar days but are less than the 120 days allowed for installing a GCCS.
The EPA is seeking input on whether a specific schedule for submitting these requests for alternative corrective action timelines is appropriate because investigating and determining the appropriate corrective action, as well as the schedule for implementing the corrective action, will be site specific and depend on the reason for the exceedance. We also solicit input on whether any clarifications should be included in the revised emission guidelines to expedite the submission of any alternative time line requests (i.e., as soon as they know that they would not be able to correct the exceedance in 15 days or expand the system in 120 days) to avoid being in violation of the rule.
To address implementation concerns associated with the time allowed for corrective action, the EPA requests input on an approach that extends the requirement for notification from 15 days to as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days. Many requests for an alternative compliance timeline express the need for additional time to make necessary repairs to a well that requires significant construction activities. Extending the time period to as soon as practicable but no later than 60 days may reduce the burden and ensure sufficient time for correction. If the EPA were to extend the time period, then the EPA also would consider removing the requirement to submit an alternative timeline for correcting the exceedance. Thus, by no later than day 60, the landfill would have to either have completed the adjustments and repairs necessary to correct the exceedance, or be prepared to have the system expansion completed by day 120. The EPA is also requesting input on whether 60 days is the appropriate amount of time that would allow owners or operators to make the necessary a repairs.
Under Executive Order 12866, titled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this is a “significant regulatory action” because the action raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. Because this action does not propose or impose any requirements, other statutory and Executive Order reviews that apply to rulemaking do not apply. Should the EPA subsequently determine to pursue a rulemaking, the EPA will address the statues and Executive Orders as applicable to that rulemaking.
Nevertheless, the EPA welcomes input and/or information that would help the EPA to assess any of the following: The potential impact of a rule on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX that updates the Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA must review, and, if appropriate, revise standards of performance at least every 8 years. The EPA's review of the standards for municipal solid waste landfills applies to landfills that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014. The proposed standards reflect changes to the population of landfills and an analysis of the timing and methods for reducing emissions. The proposed standards also address other regulatory issues including the definition of landfill gas treatment systems, among other topics. The new subpart will reduce emissions of landfill gas, which contains both nonmethane organic compounds and methane. These avoided emissions will improve air quality and reduce public health and welfare effects associated with exposure to landfill gas emissions.
If no one contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing to be held concerning this proposed rule by July 22, 2014, a public hearing will not take place. If a hearing is held, it will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because this hearing, if held, will be at U.S. government facilities, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. In addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Commenters should notify Ms. Hunt if they will need specific equipment, or if there are other special needs related to providing comments at the hearings. Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Information regarding the hearing (including information as to whether or not one will be held) will be available at:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
For information concerning this proposal, contact Ms. Hillary Ward, Fuels and Incineration Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (E143-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3154; fax number: (919) 541-0246; email address:
The EPA has conducted an initial review of the Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (landfill new source performance standards or landfills NSPS). The EPA's review is ongoing and will be informed by, among other matters, comments received on today's proposed action. Based on its initial review, the EPA is proposing a number of changes to the existing landfills NSPS. In order to avoid possible confusion regarding which MSW landfills would actually be subject to any revised, or new, requirements, the EPA is establishing a new subpart XXX (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) rather than merely updating existing subpart WWW (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW). The requirements in new subpart XXX will apply to MSW landfills for which construction, modification, or reconstruction is commenced on or after July 17, 2014. The requirements in subpart WWW will continue to apply to MSW landfills on which construction, modification or reconstruction was commenced on or after May 30, 1991 and before July 17, 2014. Note that this preamble uses both of the terms “MSW landfills” and “landfills” to refer to MSW landfills.
Several factors led to today's proposed action. First, section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. § 7411) requires the EPA to review standards of performance at least every 8 years and, if appropriate, revise the standards to reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions. Second, a mandatory duty lawsuit was filed against EPA for failure to review the NSPS by the statutorily required deadline. Under a consent decree resolving that lawsuit, the EPA agreed to propose a review and take final action on the proposal. Third, the EPA has concluded that landfill owners and operators, as well as regulators, need clarification regarding issues that have arisen during implementation of the existing standards. Implementation issues include the definition of landfill gas treatment, among other topics.
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(B)) requires the EPA to “at least every 8 years review and, if appropriate, revise” new source performance standards. CAA section 111(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1)) provides that performance standards are to “reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” We refer to this level of control as the best system of emission reduction or “BSER.”
As indicated above, the EPA has decided to propose its review of the landfill NSPS in a new subpart rather than update existing requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. The EPA believes that either approach is legally permissible.
The proposed new subpart retains the same design capacity threshold but reduces the non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) emission threshold at which MSW landfills must install controls. The new subpart also resolves or clarifies issues that the EPA and stakeholders identified during implementation of the current landfills NSPS.
An MSW landfill owner or operator is expected to install the least-cost control for collecting and combusting landfill gas. The control costs include the costs to install and operate a GCCS. For certain landfills that were expected to generate revenue by using the landfill gas for energy, revenue from electricity sales was incorporated into the net control costs. The annualized costs also include testing and monitoring costs.
Proposed subpart XXX, which tightens the NMOC emissions threshold from 50 to 40 Mg/yr NMOC, would achieve reductions of 79 Mg NMOC/yr and 12,300 Mg methane/yr (about 307,600 Mg CO
This proposal affects municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills and associated solid waste management programs. Affected categories and entities include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the new subpart. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in proposed 40 CFR 60.760 of subpart XXX. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed subpart to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the
The docket number for the municipal solid waste landfills new source performance standards (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. Docket ID No. A-88-09 contains supporting information for related 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc.
In June 2013, President Obama issued a Climate Action Plan which, among other matters, directed the EPA and five other federal agencies to develop a comprehensive interagency strategy to reduce methane emissions. The plan recognized that methane emissions constitute a significant percentage of domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, highlighted reductions in methane emissions since 1990, and outlined specific actions that could be taken to achieve additional progress. Specifically, the federal agencies were instructed to focus on “assessing current emissions data, addressing data gaps, identifying technologies and best practices for reducing emissions and identifying existing authorities and incentive-based opportunities to reduce methane emissions.”
As a follow up to the 2013 Climate Action Plan, the Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions (the Methane Strategy) was released in March 2014. The focus on reducing methane emissions is due to the fact that methane is a potent GHG with a global warming potential that is 25 times greater than carbon dioxide.
The targeted strategy noted that the landfill standards at issue here and voluntary programs already in place
The EPA has long recognized the climate benefits associated with reducing methane emissions from landfills. In the 1991 Landfill NSPS Background Information Document
An ancillary benefit from regulating air emissions from MSW landfills is a reduction in the contribution of MSW landfill emissions to global emissions of methane. Methane is a major greenhouse gas, and is 20 to 30 times more potent than CO
Since 1996, the EPA and the scientific community have gained a better understanding of GHGs, such as methane, and their effects on climate change and human health and welfare. In 2009, the EPA Administrator issued the document known as the Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a)(1).
There is now scientific consensus that GHGs affect climate change and, as recognized by the President in the Methane Strategy, this scientific consensus increases the need for the EPA to examine regulatory options for reducing methane emissions. The EPA is currently reviewing the MSW Landfills NSPS in light of the President's Climate Action Plan, the Methane Strategy, and improvements in the science related to GHG emissions, and is exploring opportunities to achieve additional reductions in emissions, including methane emissions.
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the Administrator's judgment cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(A). The EPA must then issue performance standards for new (and modified or reconstructed) sources in each source category. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source performance standards or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to define the scope of the source categories, determine the pollutants for which standards should be developed, set the emission level of the standards, and distinguish among classes, type and sizes within categories in establishing the standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b).
On March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905), under the authority of CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), the EPA added the MSW landfills source category to the priority list in 40 CFR 60.16 because, in the judgment of the Administrator, the source category contributes significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. In that same notice, the EPA promulgated new source performance standards, which apply to new (and modified or reconstructed) landfills under the authority of CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), and emission guidelines, which apply to existing landfills, under the authority of CAA section 111(d). In the March 12, 1996 notice, the EPA defined the MSW landfills source category, identified municipal solid waste landfill emissions (commonly referred to as landfill gas) as the pollutant for which standards should be developed, identified which landfills would be covered, and determined the applicability thresholds and emission level of the standards.
CAA section 111(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1)) provides that standards of performance are to “reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” We refer to this level of control as the best system of emission reduction or BSER. When promulgated in 1996, BSER for MSW landfills was determined to be a well designed and well operated LFG collection and control system with a control device capable of reducing NMOC by 98 percent by weight. NMOC was established as a surrogate for LFG in the final rule.
The CAA also requires the EPA to review the NSPS at least every 8 years to determine if the level of control that was previously established remains appropriate. Specifically, CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(B)) requires the EPA to “at least every 8 years review and, if appropriate, revise” standards of performance. The Administrator need not review a standard, however, if the “Administrator determines that such review is not appropriate in light of readily available information on the efficacy” of the standard. While not required to do so, the EPA has authority to revise an NSPS to add emission limits for pollutants or emission sources not currently regulated for that source category concurrent with its review of the NSPS (77 FR 49494, August 16, 2012).
In determining BSER, we typically conduct a review that identifies what emission reduction systems exist and how much they reduce air pollution in practice. Next, for each control system identified, we evaluate its costs, energy requirements, and any nonair quality health and environmental impacts. Based on our evaluation, we determine BSER for each pollutant to be regulated and establish an appropriate standard of performance based on the identified BSER. The resultant standard is usually expressed either as a numerical emissions limit, e.g., parts per million (ppm) or pounds per million British thermal unit (lb/MMBtu), or a percent reduction requirement. Although the standards are based on the identified BSER, the EPA may not require the use of a particular technology to comply with a performance standard unless the Administrator determines that it is not
The purpose of this action is (1) to review the MSW landfills NSPS, (2) to propose a resolution or to provide clarification regarding implementation issues that were addressed in prior proposed rules published on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36475) and September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53271), as they apply to new sources, and (3) to take comment on specific aspects of EPA's review that will be considered in promulgating the final NSPS standard. These proposed revisions appear in the proposed 40 CFR part 60 subpart XXX.
Many changes have occurred in the landfill industry since the landfills NSPS was originally promulgated in 1996 that have necessitated this review. Among the factors contributing to the need for review are the following: Changes in landfill characteristics (i.e., size, ownership, age) and population; proliferation of landfill gas energy projects; the availability of more comprehensive data on landfills from mandatory (Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)) and voluntary EPA programs; and the introduction of new techniques for monitoring landfill gas emissions. The number and size distribution of MSW landfills in the United States has also evolved since 1996. Public opposition to local MSW disposal facilities and the increasing cost of disposal at locations near where the waste is generated have resulted in consolidation and led to an increase in long-distance hauls to large regional landfills. As a result, the corresponding emission profiles and per landfill compliance costs have also changed.
The number of landfill gas to energy projects has also increased substantially. In 1996, there were approximately 160 operational landfill gas energy projects and approximately 700 candidate landfills according to data obtained by the EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). According to LMOP, as of March 2014, there were 636 operational projects using landfill gas to produce energy and 450 landfills that remain candidates for energy recovery. LMOP is a voluntary assistance program that encourages recovery and beneficial use of landfill gas, and in turn, helps to reduce methane emissions from landfills. During our review, the EPA has also become aware of techniques and procedures for monitoring landfill gas emissions that were not available at the time of the original rule.
The EPA is required to review the MSW Landfills NSPS and sections IV, V, and VI of this preamble present our initial determinations. In addition, the EPA has determined that it is appropriate to propose a revised NSPS based on these initial determinations.
This action also provides clarification regarding issues that arose during the implementation of the current landfills regulations and proposes regulatory text addressing some of those issues. We addressed these issues in previous notices as published on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36475) and September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53271). These issues include the definition of landfill gas treatment and other topics such as surface monitoring, how to address closed areas of landfills and when to allow removal of controls. Although the cited notices addressed these issues in the context of subparts Cc and WWW, the clarifications and resolutions discussed in sections VII and VIII of this preamble would affect only landfills that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification on or after July 17, 2014.
The EPA plans to address amendments and clarifications resulting from implementation activities for landfills subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and state or federal plans implementing subpart Cc in a separate action.
This action also requests comment on specific aspects of the EPA's review, the consideration of which will be integral to the EPA in taking final action to promulgate a new NSPS. These provisions include landfill gas treatment, wellhead monitoring, and surface monitoring. See section IX of this preamble for a discussion of those provisions.
The EPA is proposing to add new subpart XXX to 40 CFR part 60. Subpart XXX would apply to landfills that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification on or after July 17, 2014. Proposed subpart XXX in 40 CFR part 60 contains a revision to the NMOC emission rate threshold, as well as provisions that provide clarification and proposed resolutions to technical and implementation issues.
The EPA is proposing to reduce the NMOC emission rate threshold for installing and operating a gas collection and control system to 40 Mg/yr from the current NSPS level of 50 Mg/yr. The proposal retains the design capacity cutoff of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters that appears in subpart WWW. See sections V and VI of this preamble for a discussion of the proposed rule changes. The new subpart also resolves or clarifies issues that the EPA and stakeholders identified during implementation of the current landfills NSPS.
The EPA is proposing this revised emission threshold that takes into account the total methane emission reductions that can be achieved in addition to the reductions of NMOC emissions that are realized when the GCCS is installed at an earlier point in time. While the proposal continues to require measurement of NMOC as a surrogate for landfill gas, the EPA asserts that the methane reductions achieved are consistent with the President's Methane Strategy as described in section III of this preamble.
The EPA first undertook a review to determine whether a well designed and well operated landfill GCCS, which EPA previously determined was BSER for controlling landfill gas, remains BSER for that purpose. The EPA considered GCCSs, as well as other emission control technologies that are either currently in place at landfills, or could be adopted, and considered the emission reductions achieved by those systems. Based on this analysis, the EPA determined that a well designed and operated landfill GCCS remains BSER. The EPA then undertook an analysis to determine whether applying the existing criteria for installing and operating a landfill GCCS to the expected population of new MSW landfills remains the preferred approach to implementing BSER. To do so, the EPA developed and applied a model program in Microsoft® Access to revisit the design capacity cutoff, the NMOC emission rate cutoff, and the time allowed for installing and expanding a gas collection system. In addition to reviewing the thresholds that determine the schedule for installing and expanding the GCCS system, the EPA also reviewed whether the schedule for removing the GCCS needed adjustment (see section V.A of this preamble). For
Prior to promulgation of the MSW landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) in 1996, we conducted a review that identified the existing types of emission control systems being used and the corresponding emission reductions that were being achieved in practice. Based on that evaluation, we determined BSER to be: (1) A well designed and well operated landfill GCCS and (2) a control device capable of reducing NMOC in the collected gas by 98 percent by weight (56 FR 24468, May 30, 1991 and 61 FR 9914, March 12, 1996). For BSER, we set design and operating standards for the gas collection system and set an emission limit for the control system. Then, we established a schedule for installing and then expanding the GCCS based on the landfill's design capacity (2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters) and the estimated NMOC emissions rate (50 Mg/yr).
The current technology review shows that the same types of collection and control systems reviewed in 1996 (see Docket ID No. A-88-09) continue to be prominently used to reduce landfill gas emissions and the design and operational standards promulgated in 1996 continue to be robust. Section VI of this preamble discusses our findings resulting from consideration of potential revisions affecting the criteria and schedule for installing and then expanding the GCCS. We undertook this evaluation to determine if the thresholds associated with BSER established in 1996 are still relevant today, “taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements” in accordance with CAA section 111(a)(1).
In 1996, the EPA set design and operational standards in subpart WWW for the GCCS and an emission limit for the control device (61 FR 9907; March 12, 1996).
Landfill owners and operators collect landfill gas for a variety of reasons: To control odor, to minimize fire and explosion hazards, to recover landfill gas to be used for energy recovery, to sell carbon credits, and to comply with local, state, or federal air quality standards. Landfill owners and operators are motivated to design and operate their landfill gas collection systems to efficiently collect and control landfill gas and they continue to install a gas collection system comprising gas collection wells, horizontal or vertical piping, and blowers to collect and control landfill gas.
Each of the estimated 1,000 gas collection systems in place today, both required and voluntary, has an associated combustion device used to control emissions of landfill gas. At a minimum, landfills employ a flare to combust the gas. Both open and enclosed flares were determined to be among BSER combustion devices and these technologies continue to be used today. The following combustion controls can achieve at least 98 percent destruction of NMOCs and we propose that they continue to represent BSER: Enclosed flares and incinerators, and devices that burn landfill gas to recover energy, such as boilers, turbines, and internal combustion engines. The EPA continues to believe that 98 percent reduction is appropriate because this continues to be the level achievable by demonstrated technologies. Current data are consistent with 98 percent destruction. However, we request comment and additional data on the NMOC destruction efficiency of incinerators and devices that burn landfill gas to recover energy, such as boilers, turbines, and internal combustion engines.
Non-enclosed flares used at landfills meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 60.18(b) are thought to have destruction efficiencies similar to enclosed flares and incinerators, and devices that burn landfill gas to recover energy, such as boilers, turbines, and internal combustion engines. However, in April 2012 the EPA conducted an external peer review on flaring efficiency and made available to the public a draft technical report, “Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares.”
The EPA reviewed several best management practices (BMPs) for GCCS that may achieve greater reductions in landfill gas emissions than a well designed and well operated system alone. The EPA reviewed these BMPs to determine if and how they could be incorporated into subpart XXX in conjunction with the current performance-based standard.
One BMP the EPA considered was collecting landfill gas from leachate removal systems in order to control landfill gas that exists below the waste mass along the bottom of the landfill. The EPA is aware of landfills with leachate recirculation systems that have connected the landfill gas collection system and leachate collection system; however, references suggest that connection of these systems is not common at landfills that do not employ leachate recirculation.
Another BMP the EPA considered is requiring a gas collection system to prevent waterlogged wells, perhaps
The EPA does not currently consider requiring that the gas collection system be operated in such a way as to prevent waterlogged wells, rather than requiring that the wells be monitored so as to identify any such wells, to be BSER. Nonetheless, the EPA requests comment on whether the current combination of wellhead monitoring and surface emission monitoring is sufficient for identifying inoperable wells, especially in cases where wells have been installed for a significant amount of time. If the proposed monitoring systems are believed to be deficient for identifying flooded wells, the EPA also asks for comment on whether any additional recordkeeping, such as periodic measurement of liquid levels in gas wells, might be useful in identifying flooded wells that are not collecting gas.
The EPA also considered a BMP of requiring redundant seals and enhanced sealing materials on wellheads. One study includes a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) survey suggesting that landfill gas wellheads and other surface penetrations present high potential for concentrated leaks of organic compounds.
Proposed subpart XXX requires the preparation of a site-specific design plan by a professional engineer, which must be approved by the EPA or a delegated authority. Because the design plan is not prescriptive and instead contains design and operational standards that are site-specific, the design plan has the flexibility to determine the appropriate number or type of seals in order to accommodate the conditions and climates at different landfills. The EPA believes that this site-specific approach is preferable to specifying the use of a particular number of seals. This site-specific approach also provides for continued flexibility for future design plans to incorporate new sealing materials that may be more efficient than those currently available today. The design plan, coupled with wellhead and surface monitoring requirements, ensures that leaks from wells are minimized.
With this proposal, the EPA is clarifying that all cover penetrations must be checked during quarterly surface monitoring and this clarification would apply to checking around each wellhead for any elevated emission levels. Proposed subpart XXX requires corrective action for any surface monitoring reading over 500 ppm. Finally, the EPA is taking comment on tighter traverse patterns for surface monitoring, coupled with more rigorous surface maintenance activity, as another level of protection against leaks from improperly sealed wells.
Further, one reference indicates that many engineers already require two and sometimes three seals in a well when preparing design plans for GCCS. For all of these reasons, the EPA believes that a site-specific approach is more effective than prescribing the use of a particular number of seals or the use of a particular type of sealing material. As a result, at this point in its review, the EPA has determined that the use of advanced seals is not a component of BSER. The EPA, nevertheless, requests comment on whether the use of advanced seals should be a component of BSER.
The EPA also reviewed several emerging technologies that may achieve additional landfill gas emission reductions. The EPA evaluated whether the technology is adequately demonstrated and the extent to which the technology could be applied to new landfills.
The EPA considered a number of technologies that increase the methane oxidation rate of the landfill, thereby reducing the amount of methane that could escape through the surface of the landfill. Co-oxidation of NMOC has been observed during use of these alternative landfill cover materials, which has the potential to reduce odors and toxic air pollutants.
Another method for increasing the oxidation rate is to route passively vented landfill gas through a vessel containing methane-oxidizing media, commonly referred to as a biofiltration cell. Biofilters have been tested for use at landfills over only the past 10 to 15 years, and, although they may achieve moderate to high reductions in uncontrolled methane emissions, we cannot conclude at this time that these systems have been adequately demonstrated, as we explain below.
No data exist on the long-term performance, effectiveness, or maintenance requirements of these
To examine the potential impact of changes to the timing of initiating landfill gas collection and control, the EPA developed a dataset of information for existing and new landfills, as described below, and applied a model to assess when controls were needed under the baseline control scenario as well as various regulatory options. Each regulatory option assessed variations in the design capacity and emission rate thresholds, as well as changes to the initial lag time and expansion lag time. The “initial lag time” is the time period between when the landfill exceeds the emission rate threshold and when controls are required to be installed and started up (30 months in subpart WWW). The “expansion lag time” is the amount of time allotted for the landfill to expand the GCCS into new areas of the landfill (5 years for active areas and 2 years for areas that are closed or at final grade in subpart WWW).
The EPA created a dataset of information for existing and new landfills, which included landfill-specific data such as landfill open and closure year, landfill design capacity, landfill design area, and landfill depth. The creation of the landfill dataset is detailed in the docketed memorandum, “Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014.”
The EPA used attributes of these existing landfills to develop model landfills to represent new landfills opening in the first 5 years after subpart XXX is proposed (2014-2018). The model future landfills were developed by evaluating the most recently opened existing landfills and assuming that the sizes and locations of landfills opening in the future would be similar to the sizes and locations of landfills that opened in the last 8 years with complete data (2003-2010).
The EPA then incorporated technical landfill parameters from this dataset, such as landfill size, annual waste acceptance rate, and open year, into a model in order to estimate when each landfill would install GCCS under various regulatory options. This model used a first-order decay equation to model the landfill gas emissions (i.e., NMOC and methane) from each landfill for 50 years following the effective date of subpart XXX.
The EPA programmed a Microsoft® Access database to calculate the cost and emission impacts associated with different regulatory options (hereinafter referred to as the “model”). To determine when landfills exceeded regulatory emission thresholds, the model uses Tier 1 default values from subpart WWW for the methane generation potential (L
When modeled landfill gas emissions for a particular landfill exceeded the emission rate threshold, the EPA assumed that collection equipment was installed and started operating at the landfill after the initial lag time specified in each option. The EPA also assumed that as the landfill was filled over time, the landfill would expand the GCCS into new areas of waste placement in time intervals that coincide with the expansion lag time specified in each option.
To determine when controls may be capped or removed, and to calculate the amount of landfill gas, NMOC, and methane collected under each option, the model uses L
To estimate the costs of each regulatory option, the EPA incorporated the estimated landfill gas recovery rates from the first-order decay equation and an estimated well field acreage into a set of cost equations based on EPA's Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model (LFGcost), version 2.3, which was developed by EPA's LMOP. (LFGcost estimates gas collection, flare and energy recovery system capital, operating, and maintenance costs.) The EPA also collected data on monitoring and testing costs such as initial performance tests, subpart WWW Tier 1 and Tier 2 calculations, and quarterly surface monitoring that were not provided in the LFGcost model.
The capital costs are all presented in year 2012 dollars and annualized using an interest rate of 7 percent over the lifetime of the equipment (typically 15 years), or in the case of drill mobilization costs, the length of time between each wellfield expansion. These annualized capital costs were added to the annual operating and maintenance costs estimated by LFGcost. The annualized cost includes capital requirements related to the purchase, installation, operation and maintenance of GCCS, and costs related to testing and monitoring requirements.
For certain landfills that were expected to generate revenue by using the LFG for energy, the EPA also estimated LFG energy recovery rates and associated costs to install and operate the energy recovery equipment as well as the revenue streams from the recovered energy. These revenues were subtracted from the annualized capital and operating and maintenance costs at each landfill in order to obtain a net cost estimate for each option in each year. The emission reduction and cost and revenue equations and assumptions are detailed in the docketed memorandum, “Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014.”
Often the EPA examines the impacts of NSPS at 5 years after rule implementation; however, the EPA selected 10 years for this landfills NSPS review, 2023. Due to the emission characteristics of new landfills that begin to accept waste in 2014 or after and the applicability provisions of the NSPS, 5 years would not provide a representative population of landfills for evaluating alternative standards, and in fact none of the modeled landfills would be expected to have installed controls by year five. Landfills do not become subject to the control requirements of the NSPS on the date that they begin operation. Instead, landfills exceeding the design capacity threshold become subject to control requirements 30 months after the emissions exceed the NMOC emission threshold. It may take well over 5 years for a newly constructed landfill to exceed the NMOC threshold, depending on the rate of waste acceptance and other site-specific factors. Therefore, evaluating the impacts of the rule at 5 years would significantly underestimate the impacts that subpart XXX may have on affected facilities.
The EPA recognizes that landfills have a unique emissions and emission control timeline over their lifetime, compared to other stationary sources of emissions. The quantity of emission reductions achieved and the costs to achieve those reductions will vary depending on where each landfill is in its lifecycle. By year 10 (year 2023), landfills in this analysis are further along in their lifecycle than they would be at year five and over half of the modeled landfills have installed controls, incurred costs, and achieved emission reductions under several options the EPA considered in its review of the NSPS.
When determining which control options would represent BSER, the EPA ran many permutations of various control options. Some options adjusted a single threshold in isolation; for example, reducing the NMOC emission threshold while keeping the design capacity threshold constant, or conversely, reducing the design capacity threshold while keeping the NMOC emission threshold constant. Other options adjusted multiple control parameters simultaneously, taking into account the relationship between the parameters. For example, recognizing that NMOC emissions are a function of waste-in-place, some options that significantly reduced the NMOC emission threshold also reduced the design capacity thresholds to avoid situations where the NMOC emission threshold would be exceeded long before the design capacity threshold. Other options increased the design capacity threshold while reducing the NMOC emission threshold by relatively small increments in order to minimize the reporting-only burden that would be imposed on landfills that had exceeded the design capacity threshold, but not the NMOC emission threshold, and would therefore be reporting, but not controlling.
In addition to adjusting applicability and emission control thresholds, other model runs varied the initial and/or expansion lag times. These variations estimated the impacts of requiring landfill owners or operators to install gas collection systems more quickly after crossing each applicable NMOC emission threshold. Specifically, some model runs assessed the impacts of reducing the initial lag time from 30 months (modeled as 3 years for the purpose of this analysis, as discussed in the docketed memorandum “Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014”) to 2 years. Model runs varying the expansion lag time were also run. For expansion lag times, subpart WWW allows 2 years after initial waste placement in closed areas and 5 years after initial waste placement in active areas of the landfill. As a result, the actual expansion lag time varies by landfill depending on how quickly expansion areas are filled and closed. Modern large landfill designs tend to expand the collection system 5 years after initial waste placement in active areas of the landfill. Based on input received during public outreach, most modern large landfills do not reach final grade within 2 years and a majority of landfills are complying with the 5 year provision. Therefore, a 4-year expansion lag time was assumed to represent the baseline, as discussed in more detail in the docketed memorandum “Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014.” A shorter expansion lag time of 2 years after initial waste placement was examined as an alternative regulatory option. Some model runs evaluated the impacts of reducing both the initial and expansion lag times in parallel and other model runs evaluated the impacts of reduced emission and/or design capacity thresholds in conjunction with reduced initial and/or expansion lag times.
Preliminary results of the model runs showed that the current set of design capacity and NMOC emission threshold parameters in subpart WWW was the most cost effective option in year 2023. Options that reduced the NMOC emission threshold slightly, either in isolation or in conjunction with a reduction in the design capacity threshold had only a slightly higher cost effectiveness than the baseline. See the docketed memorandum “Cost and Emissions Impacts Resulting from the Landfills NSPS Review. 2014” and the docketed item “Modeling Database Containing Inputs and Results of Proposed Revisions to MSW Landfill NSPS. 2014.” Options that reduced the initial and/or expansion lag times to 2 years were typically less cost effective than the options that reduced the NMOC emission threshold.
Based on the results of the preliminary analysis, the EPA presented different model runs during Federalism consultations and small entity outreach that represented the range of variation in both the threshold and lag time parameters. For the options presented, Small entity representatives (SERs) and Federalism consultation participants provided feedback to the EPA, which included implementation concerns with varying certain parameters as part of this NSPS review, as discussed in the following section. The EPA took these concerns into consideration when developing the set of proposed options in this action.
Options that increase the design capacity threshold provide some opportunities for reduced reporting burden; however, these options also introduce the potential to miss emission reduction opportunities at certain landfills that exceed the NMOC
Options that reduce the design capacity threshold without also lowering the NMOC emission threshold would create additional reporting and permitting burden without any additional environmental benefit. These types of options would not change the number of landfills required to control emissions, but they would increase the number of landfills required to obtain an operating permit and also increase the number of landfills required to complete Tier 1 or Tier 2 emission calculations and reports.
When the EPA promulgated the 2.5 million Mg design capacity threshold in 1996, we considered the impact on small entities based on public comment (61 FR 9910). Today, small entities still tend to own smaller sized landfills, whereas larger entities tend to own larger regional landfills. Approximately 10 percent of the landfills subject to subpart WWW or the MSW landfills state or federal plan implementing subpart Cc are owned by small entities. Further, the cost burden for installing a collection and control system is more significant for small landfills, which are more often owned by small entities, than larger landfills. Certain costs to construct the gas collection system (e.g., flat fees for drill rig mobilization, and monitoring and construction costs) remain relatively constant regardless of the size of the landfill.
For these reasons, the EPA is not proposing any changes to the current design capacity threshold of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m
The EPA recognizes that NMOC emissions are site specific, varying widely from landfill to landfill and understands that a majority of landfills currently affected by subpart WWW conduct Tier 2 testing in order to refine their NMOC emission estimates before installing a GCCS.
Lowering the NMOC emission threshold would result in earlier GCCS installations, 13 percent more emission reductions, and a dollar-per-Mg cost to control NMOC that is higher than the baseline ($6,000/Mg NMOC vs. $4,400/Mg NMOC). Despite these higher costs, the EPA also recognizes the value of reducing methane emissions ($1.50/Mg CO
The emission reductions achieved by reducing the initial or expansion lag time are affected by the size of the landfill, waste placement patterns, and annual acceptance rates. For example, the size of the landfill and the filling cycle affects how much and when emission reductions would be achieved. Based on comments received from SERs and Federalism consultation participants, modern landfill designs typically do not reach final grade before 7 years. Because the landfills NSPS allows two options for expanding the GCCS (2 years after initial waste placement in closed areas and 5 years after initial waste placement in active areas), any reduction to the 2 year lag time for closed areas would not likely achieve any actual additional reductions from these larger landfills because the majority of landfills are complying with the 5-year allowance period instead of the 2-year allowance period. Modifying the 5-year provision may also have a limited actual impact on emission reductions. Many landfills in wet climates install wells ahead of the 5-year schedule for odor or energy recovery purposes. When examining the effects of shortening the lag times, the emission reductions vary over the time period considered. To visually observe how reducing the lag times affects emissions and reductions over the 10-year period following proposal, see the charts comparing emissions from reduced lag times in the docketed memorandum, “Cost and Emissions Impacts Resulting from the Landfills NSPS Review. 2014.”
When isolating the timeframe for initial GCCS installation from the other control criteria, modeling showed that the reductions in year 2023 are lower than those estimated to be achieved under the current baseline. Although the initial GCCS would be installed earlier, for example in year 2020, it would also be designed slightly smaller (i.e., a smaller number of wells) than a GCCS installed in a later year. By 2023, the system would not have been expanded yet, thus, the total amount of emission reductions achieved in 2023 will be less than the baseline until the system is expanded in 2024.
Reducing the expansion lag time would achieve a short period of modeled reductions during every expansion cycle because the GCCS would be expanded one year earlier. Emission reductions in year 2023 would be approximately 27 percent higher than an option that did not shorten the expansion lag time. However, when considered over a 10-year period, the additional emission reduction would be approximately 8 percent.
Small entity representatives and Federalism consultation participants expressed concern about the potential shortening of lag times. For details, refer to the docketed report “Summary of Small Entity Outreach. 2014.”
According to the commenters, reduced lag times would result in the installation of more GCCS equipment in active fill areas. Wells located in these areas are more frequently damaged as a result of daily filling operations and the movement of equipment. Damaged wells must be repaired with well extensions and/or redrilling of wells. In addition, waste in active fill areas undergoes significant settlement. This settlement affects the alignment of gas header equipment, requiring more frequent repairs, troubleshooting, and replacement of equipment. These repairs can add a significant cost to the construction and operation of a GCCS that is not currently accounted for in the LFGcost estimates and also increase the amount of system downtime.
In addition to the implementation concerns, reducing the lag times would require more frequent mobilization of drill rig equipment, purchase of GCCS infrastructure, and system repairs, which could lead to higher costs. In year 2023, the dollar-per-Mg cost to reduce the initial and/or expansion lag times in conjunction with reducing the NMOC threshold are higher than the options that do not adjust the lag times ($6,900 to $11,300/Mg NMOC vs. $6,000/Mg NMOC). This higher cost is due in part to the timing of the first round of wellfield expansions at these new landfills, many of which were modeled to expand their systems in 2023, and thus incurring additional costs in that year to operate both the initial GCCS and the first set of expansion wells.
Small entity representatives and Federalism consultation participants raised several practical concerns with reducing the expansion lag time. Reducing the expansion lag time would result in more wells located in active fill areas because more of the face of the landfill is active after only 2 years of waste acceptance and the landfill owner
In addition, active fill areas are still in the aerobic phase of waste decomposition. Installing wells in areas with high oxygen levels increases the chance of subsurface fires. It also leads to more frequent exceedances of the current wellhead monitoring standards for oxygen. In these cases the landfill owner or operator would also be unlikely to request a higher operating value for oxygen because they would have difficulty meeting the two criteria in proposed 40 CFR 60.763(c) for a higher operating value demonstration: A higher operating value must not cause fires and must not significantly inhibit anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens. Neither of these criteria would apply to wells located in active fill areas.
Horizontal LFG collection wells may provide some relief to these implementation concerns that were raised by the SERs, while also allowing for the wells to be installed more quickly after the waste is placed in the landfill. These types of wells consist of perforated pipe in gravel-filled trenches constructed within the waste mass as an active area is filled. The wellheads are installed remotely outside of the active fill area to allow landfill owners/operators to monitor the wells. Although the horizontal collection infrastructure is installed as the waste is placed in the fill area, the collectors are not brought online under an active vacuum until a sufficient refuse layer has been placed on top of the collectors. This time period is necessary in order to prevent air infiltration in the landfill. However, this time period is often shorter than the timeframe needed to install vertical wells, and can be as short as a few months after refuse is buried.
The EPA is aware of several horizontal collector installations, including several landfills in California
The shorter length of time associated with bringing horizontal collectors online can be especially important at landfills employing liquids recirculation techniques or located in wetter climates, given the higher LFG generation rates at those sites (see section V.G of this preamble). Bringing these collectors online more quickly and more proactively addresses odor concerns at landfills. These systems are also useful in landfills that practice “over-filling,” where new waste is placed on top of a section of the landfill that was capped temporarily. SERs did express some implementation concerns with horizontal collectors, indicating that these systems have a shorter lifetime than vertical wells and require more frequent replacement.
For the reasons presented in this section, the EPA is not proposing to shorten the initial or expansion lag times from the lag times codified in subpart WWW. However, the EPA requests comment on the feasibility and potential benefits of reducing either or both of the lag times. Specifically, the EPA requests comment on the practicality, cost, and emission reduction implications of installing or expanding the wellfield on active areas in a shorter timeframe. The EPA believes that this may be appropriate since horizontal collector systems have been installed at several landfills that were not in operation when the NSPS was originally promulgated in 1996. The EPA also requests data and/or comment on the potential emission reductions and corresponding costs that could result from reduced lag times. The EPA also notes that the cost analysis presented in section X of this preamble is based on vertical wells and the EPA is interested in any comments and data that address any differential in costs between these two types of systems.
The EPA is requesting comment on several items regarding BSER. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed design and operational standards for new sources that EPA believes are necessary to ensure a GCCS is well designed and well operated. The EPA is requesting comment on additional emission control technologies that are in place at landfills—other than a GCCS as described here—that could be considered BSER. We request descriptions of such systems, an indication of their current use, data demonstrating emission reductions, and corresponding costs of such systems. The EPA is also requesting comment on whether a well designed and well operated GCCS in conjunction with any of the technologies or practices discussed in section V.A of this preamble should be considered to be BSER.
The EPA is also taking comment on whether it should consider reducing the design capacity threshold or initial lag times for landfills that are located in a wet climate or that recirculate leachate or add other liquids to the landfills to accelerate waste decomposition. Wetter wastes decompose more quickly than drier wastes and as a result generate more landfill gas in the short term. Therefore, it may be appropriate to require these landfills to install the gas collection system sooner, which SERs indicated is already occurring in practice for landfills in wetter climates. Similarly, smaller landfills in wetter climates, or those employing leachate recirculation, may also generate earlier spikes in landfill gas emissions that could exceed the NMOC threshold. Although these landfills are exempt from proposed subpart XXX under the design capacity threshold of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters, if a smaller design capacity threshold were adopted for these wet landfills, more emission reductions may be achieved.
If a separate set of thresholds and/or lag times were to apply to these wet landfills, the EPA requests comment on how a wet landfill might be defined. For example, a wet landfill could be defined as a landfill that has precipitation of greater than 25 inches per year and/or recirculates leachate (or other liquids).
To determine which option to propose, the EPA considered the emission reductions that are expected to be achieved under the criteria in the baseline (subpart WWW), as well as emission reductions that would be achieved under several control options more stringent than the baseline.
In this analysis, the baseline contains the same gas collection and control requirements and thresholds (2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million cubic meters and 50 Mg NMOC per year) that are in subpart WWW. For the baseline, the initial lag time is 30 months; and the expansion lag time is 2 years after initial waste placement in cells that are closed or at final grade or 5 years after initial waste placement in active areas of the landfill. These parameters are described in detail in section V of this preamble.
Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the impacts of the baseline for year 2023. The table includes emission reductions for NMOC, methane, and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
The baseline is estimated to require control at eight landfills in 2023, and achieve reductions of 610 Mg/yr NMOC, 94,800 Mg/yr methane (2,371,000 Mg/yr CO
In this analysis, the EPA projects 21 new landfills would commence construction, reconstruction, or modification between 2014 and 2018. The basis of this projection is discussed in detail in the docketed memorandum “Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014.” These 21 landfills are projected to emit, 1,040 Mg/yr of NMOC and 161,600 Mg/yr of methane in 2023 if the landfills had no emission controls in place. However, the baseline is modeled to require 38 percent (8/21) of these projected landfills to install emission controls by at least year 2023. In terms of emissions, the baseline is expected to achieve 59 percent reduction in estimated emissions from these landfills in 2023. Further, the eight landfills installing controls under the baseline represent 77 percent of the estimated total waste-in-place in 2023 from all 21 of the projected landfills.
The baseline allows landfills to remove the GCCS only after the following criteria are met (1) the landfill is closed, (2) the landfill has had the GCCS in operation for at least 15 years, and (3) three successive tests for NMOC emissions are below the NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg/yr. Until the GCCS is removed, the landfill must continue to operate the system in accordance with 40 CFR 60.763, which includes wellhead monitoring and surface emissions monitoring to detect and correct for any emission exceedances.
When determining which control options would represent BSER, the EPA considered several factors: The implementation concerns identified in section V of this preamble; and the incremental emission reductions, cost, and co-benefits that would be achieved beyond the baseline.
The EPA compared the annualized net cost and emission impacts in 2023 of the various regulatory options to the annualized net costs and emission impacts in 2023 of the baseline. The EPA analyzed numerous iterations of alternate control and reporting thresholds and presented potential control options to SERs and Federalism consultation participants, as described in section V of this preamble. After considering feedback from the SERs and Federalism consultation participants, the EPA selected for consideration three regulatory alternatives as presented in Table 3 of this preamble. Table 3 of this preamble summarizes the incremental impacts of each control option, when compared to the baseline. The table shows the emission reductions and corresponding annualized net costs for NMOC and methane in 2023.
The EPA is aware that some state or local ordinances require landfill gas combustion for odor, safety, or methane control reasons. For example, methane regulations in California
Finally, based on data from LMOP, the EPA is also aware of approximately 500 landfills that have voluntarily installed a gas collection system that would not otherwise be required under federal NSPS or emission guideline regulations (see section V.A of this preamble for details). These systems may have been installed to recover energy and generate revenue, including sale of electricity or landfill gas as well as to create carbon credits. However, because it is not known how many projected new landfills will voluntarily collect and combust their gas in the absence of NSPS regulation, the reductions associated with voluntary gas collection system installations were not considered when establishing the reductions associated with the baseline.
Although the overall difference in the number of landfills requiring control in 2023 under the more stringent options is only three landfills, it is important to note that each of these options would require controls to be installed earlier than the baseline, because lower NMOC emission thresholds would subject landfills to the control requirements at an earlier date.
Table 4 presents the number of landfills with control systems installed, by year, for the baseline and options considered in this analysis. Due to the 30-month initial lag time period, no controls are anticipated to be installed prior to 2020 under any of the options under consideration.
In terms of cost effectiveness, the overall dollar-per-Mg cost for NMOC reductions is $4,400 per Mg NMOC under the baseline in Table 3 of this preamble. Note the cost of controlling methane is significantly lower than for NMOC because methane constitutes approximately 50 percent of landfill gas, while NMOC represents less than 1 percent of landfill gas. The incremental dollar-per-Mg cost for NMOC reductions is $6,000 per Mg NMOC under all of the other options. For option 2.0/40, however, there are additional reporting requirements for one landfill affected by this option that would result in a marginally higher actual cost compared with the option 2.5/40. Therefore, we are not proposing option 2.0/40. Other than the added reporting costs, the emission reductions and control costs are identical for options 2.5/40 and 3.0/40. For the reasons stated in section V.D of this preamble (potential to miss reductions at landfills that exceed the NMOC emission thresholds but do not
Reducing the NMOC threshold from the baseline-level of 50 Mg/yr to 40 Mg/yr would affect only three more landfills in 2023 but would achieve an estimated 13 percent additional reduction in emissions of NMOC and methane compared to the baseline. Further, this proposal would maintain the same control device removal criteria as the baseline except that the controls would have to stay on until three successive tests for NMOC emissions were below the NMOC emission threshold of 40 Mg/yr instead of 50 Mg/yr. Depending on the waste-in-place of the landfill at closure and other site-specific factors (e.g., waste composition, climate), it may take more than 30 years after closure for a large modern landfill to emit less than the NMOC emission threshold, and in turn qualify for capping or removing the GCCS. Although the emission reductions associated with these later years in the landfills' lifetimes are not incorporated in the environmental and economic impacts of the baseline and options under consideration, the lower threshold associated with this proposal would require controls to be installed for a slightly longer period than the baseline.
Although some commenters have expressed concerns about the quantity of emissions after landfills have closed and the GCCS has ceased to operate, the analysis the EPA conducted demonstrates that GCCS would be installed for a significant period after landfill closure that is commensurate with the size and corresponding emissions profile of each affected landfill. For these reasons, the EPA is proposing that emissions must be below an emissions threshold of 40 Mg/yr as one of the three criteria for determining when a GCCS may be capped or removed. The EPA is also requesting comment on whether these three criteria are appropriate, and if alternative criteria such as consecutive quarterly measurements below a surface emission threshold should also be considered. RCRA, specifically subpart F of Part 258, also requires supplemental basic post-closure care to maintain cover integrity.
Reducing the NMOC threshold also recognizes the opportunity to build upon progress to date and achieve even more reductions of landfill gas and its components, consistent with the President's Methane Strategy as discussed in section III of this preamble. Landfill gas generated from established waste (waste that has been in place for at least a year) is typically composed of roughly 50 percent methane and 50 percent carbon dioxide by volume, with less than 1 percent NMOC. Because the components of landfill gas are associated with substantial health, welfare, and climate effects, additional reductions of landfill gas would improve air quality and reduce health and welfare effects associated with exposure to landfill gas emissions. Note that in 2012, landfills continued to be the third largest source of human-related methane emissions in the United States, representing 18.1 percent of total methane emissions.
The EPA proposed amendments to the landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36475) to address implementation issues. Consideration of public comments received and additional implementation activity led to the proposal of further clarifications on implementing the landfills regulations on September 8, 2006. After considering public comments received on the September 8, 2006 amendments and additional implementation activity, we are proposing resolutions and clarifications of the issues specifically identified below under new subpart XXX. The EPA plans to address amendments and clarifications resulting from implementation activities as they apply to subparts Cc and WWW in a separate document. The EPA will also address any potential changes to subparts Cc and WWW in a separate document. Thus EPA is not taking final action on either the May 23, 2002 or the September 8, 2006 proposed rules at this time. In addition to the specifically identified resolutions and clarifications associated with the May 23, 2002 and September 8, 2006 proposed rules, we are proposing a number of provisions in subpart XXX that are intended to address other implementation issues
The following resolutions and clarifications apply to proposed subpart XXX.
Subpart XXX contains requirements for landfill gas treatment that are consistent with the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, except that the treatment definition would require the water dew point of landfill gas to be reduced to at least 45 °F, rather than lowered by at least 20 °F. We also propose to specify a location for the temperature monitoring device that would demonstrate continuous compliance with the 45 °F requirement. The measurement device would be located at (or immediately after) the coalescing filter or other direct contact moisture removal device that follows the chiller and removes the condensed moisture. If a landfill owner/operator uses de-watering equipment that is not based on cooling the gas, such as a desiccant system, the landfill owner/operator would monitor dew point instead of temperature. For particulate matter filtration, we propose to retain the requirement for a filter system to have an absolute rating no greater than 10 microns.
We also propose to clarify monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for treatment systems. To ensure that treatment systems are operating properly to achieve the filtration and de-watering levels specified in the revised proposed treatment system definition, owners/operators would install equipment to continuously monitor pressure drop across a filter, temperature for a chiller-based de-watering system, and dew point for a non-chiller-based de-watering system. Owners/operators would record 24-hour block averages. Owners/operators may use other site-specific monitoring parameters if they demonstrate that such parameters would effectively monitor filtration or de-watering system performance. For other site-specific monitoring parameters, owners/operators must develop operating ranges for each monitored operating parameter based on manufacturer's recommendations or engineering analysis and submit those ranges, along with justification, for approval by the Administrator in an amended design plan. The proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements for treatment systems are similar to those for control device temperature monitoring requirements already in the NSPS.
The EPA is considering and taking public comment on an alternative approach to defining landfill gas treatment and the corresponding monitoring requirements, as discussed in section IX.A of this preamble.
The general provisions in 40 CFR part 60 provide that emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emissions limit during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) shall not be considered a violation of the applicable emission limit
To determine whether NMOC emissions from nonproductive areas of the landfill are less than 1 percent of the total landfill NMOC emissions (and hence controls are not required), subpart WWW relies on modeled (calculated) NMOC rates (see 40 CFR 60.759(a)(3)(ii)). To refine the measurements of these nonproductive areas, the EPA is proposing to allow owners or operators of landfills subject to subpart XXX to use measured or modeled flow of landfill gas to determine if an area is nonproductive. The EPA proposes that owners or operators of physically separated, closed areas of landfills subject to subpart XXX may use the procedures in proposed 40 CFR 60.764(b), which determine the flow rate of landfill gas using actual or modeled measurements, to determine NMOC emissions.
Subpart WWW requires quarterly surface monitoring to demonstrate that the cover and gas collection system are working properly. The intent of the surface monitoring provision is to maintain a tight cover that minimizes landfill gas emissions through the landfill surface. In this proposal, we are reiterating the intent that landfills must monitor along a pattern that traverses the landfill at specified intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, which includes all cover penetrations and openings within the area of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas collection system is required. The EPA is also considering and taking public comment on revisions to the surface monitoring requirements, as discussed in section IX of this preamble.
The EPA is proposing electronic reporting of required performance test reports, NMOC emission rate reports, and annual reports. We also propose that industry should be required to maintain only electronic copies of the records to satisfy federal recordkeeping requirements. The proposed electronic submission and storage procedures are
The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). At this time, most of the methods in the landfills NSPS are not supported by the ERT. Thus, electronic reporting of performance tests may not be required for some landfills initially, but will be required when applicable methods are added to the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at:
Subpart WWW addresses operational standards for wellheads. Under 40 CFR 60.753(c), landfill owners/operators may request and demonstrate a higher operating temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen value at a particular well. The EPA is clarifying in this preamble the intent of the following requirement: “A higher operating value demonstration must be submitted to the Administrator for approval and must include supporting data demonstrating that the elevated parameter neither causes fires nor significantly inhibits anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens.” The demonstration must meet
The EPA proposes to clarify in subpart XXX that any alternate operating value for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen proposed by an owner or operator according to the proposed 40 CFR 60.763(c) must be submitted to the Administrator (i.e., the EPA Administrator or delegated authority) for approval. The request may be submitted separately from a design plan revision. However, the design plan would have to be updated on the schedule described in the next section.
The EPA is also considering and taking comment on the landfill wellhead monitoring requirements, as discussed in the section IX.B of this preamble.
We propose adding three criteria for when an affected source must update its design plan and submit it to the Administrator under subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.767(h)). We propose requiring submittal of a revised design plan as follows: (1) Within 90 days of expanding operations to an area not covered by the previously approved design plan; (2) prior to installing or expanding the gas collection system in a manner other than described in a previously approved design plan; and (3) prior to implementing an alternative operating parameter value for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen.
Subpart WWW outlines the timeline for correcting for air infiltration in the gas collection system within 15 days of any exceedance of temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen parameters. We propose clarifying this requirement in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.765(a)(5)) to require the landfill to submit an alternative corrective action timeline request to the Administrator if the landfill cannot correct for air infiltration within 15 calendar days of the initial exceedance and the landfill is unable to (or does not plan to) expand the gas collection within 120 days of the initial exceedance.
We propose to standardize the terms “control system” and “collection and control system” throughout proposed subpart XXX in order to use consistent terminology throughout the regulatory text. Subparts Cc and WWW include phrases such as “control or treatment system”; however, 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii) indicates that a treatment system described in 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C) is considered to be a type of control system, and therefore the term “control system” is sufficient and more concise. Further, some other parts of subpart WWW refer to “collection and control device” or “control equipment”; however, the terms “device” and “equipment” are synonymous with the term “system” in the context of these rules and were replaced with “control system” or “control system equipment” in several places as appropriate, for consistency. Finally, many parts of subpart WWW inaccurately reference “control system” instead of “collection and control system” when referring back to paragraphs in 40 CFR 60.752(b). These corrections and clarifications appear in subpart XXX.
We also propose to make the following clarifications and corrections to subpart XXX, which are consistent with the May 23, 2002 and September 8, 2006 proposed amendments in subpart WWW.
Consistent with the May 23, 2002 and September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, we propose to include language in subpart XXX to exempt owners/operators of boilers and process heaters with design capacities of 44 megawatts or greater from the requirement to conduct an initial performance test (40 CFR 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B)).
Consistent with the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, we propose to remove the term “combustion” from the requirement to monitor temperature of enclosed combustors (40 CFR 60.768(b)(2)(i) and 40 CFR 60.768(c)(1)(i)).
Consistent with the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, we propose to incorporate a corrected test method cross-reference in 40 CFR 60.765(c)(3) of subpart XXX necessitated by the reorganization of Method 21 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
Consistent with the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, we propose to amend the definition of “household waste” and add a definition of “segregated yard waste” in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.761) to clarify our intent regarding the applicability of the landfills NSPS to landfills that do not accept household waste, but accept segregated yard waste.
We are clarifying that the definition of “Modification” in subpart XXX includes a change in mass or volume and we are requesting comment on the definition of modification as discussed in section VIII.I of this preamble.
Following the May 23, 2002 proposal of the treatment system definition, several commenters requested further clarification as to what levels of filtration and de-watering would be considered acceptable to meet the definition of treatment. Some
We agreed with commenters that the definition of treatment system needed additional detail. We contacted manufacturers of combustion devices that are used to recover energy from landfill gas, and we obtained their written specifications and recommendations for fuel quality. As suggested by the commenters, we reviewed the available manufacturers' specifications for acceptable moisture and particulate levels. Because different manufacturers have different specifications, our proposed definition of “treatment system” did not refer directly to the manufacturers' requirements. Instead, we developed specific filtration and de-watering targets based on those requirements.
On September 8, 2006, we proposed levels of de-watering and filtration that were consistent with most manufacturers' specifications for landfill gas burned in energy recovery devices such as reciprocating engines, gas turbines, and boilers. We also proposed a supplemental definition of treatment system, as follows: “. . . a system that has an absolute filtration rating of 10 microns or less, lowers the water dew point of the landfill gas by at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit with a de-watering process, and compresses the landfill gas.” The term “absolute filtration rating” means the diameter of the largest hard spherical particle that would pass through the filter. These treatment levels would minimize degradation of the combustion device and promote proper destruction of NMOC.
Following the September 8, 2006 supplemental amendments, several commenters objected to the 20 °F dew point reduction requirement and the requirement to monitor temperature reduction across the moisture removal system. Commenters cited several reasons, including the following:
• In cold climates, it might not be feasible to meet the proposed definition because the gas can be cooled from wellhead to temperatures in the 40 °F-range simply because of ambient conditions, and lowering the temperature further is not feasible.
• Verifying inlet and outlet temperatures is difficult because they vary depending on the pressures in the system. Accounting for these conditions could require multiple points of measure plus use of an algorithm to determine the reduction.
• The proposed standard does not take into account water removal that may be occurring in other parts of the gas collection system, such as the header.
• The level of treatment needed depends on the type and design of the specific combustion equipment being used, so some commenters favored case-by-case determinations.
The EPA maintains the position that the intent of the treatment option is to require active lowering of the dew point consistent with the better available treatment systems, and that we did not intend knock-out pots (for example) to qualify. The numerical specifications ensure that the treated gas is suitable for use in a wide range of applications. They also allow uniform national application of the NSPS, provide certainty to the landfill industry and regulated agencies, and avoid case-by-case determinations that are likely to be complex, time-consuming, and yield inconsistent results.
However, the EPA agrees with the comments that the 2006 proposed 20 °F dew point reduction requirement contains some ambiguity. For example, is the 20 °F relative to the gas temperature at the wells, in the main header prior to compression, or just prior to the chiller? Does the gas need to be chilled 20 °F below atmospheric temperature, which could be impractical in cold climates? We also agree with the commenters that if the treatment system first compresses and then chills the gas, measuring the gas temperature before the compressor and after the chiller would not give an accurate indication of the dew point reduction due to the change in pressure, and algorithms would be required to calculate the reduction.
In light of these comments, we reviewed designs from manufacturers of gas treatment compression-dehydration skids for the landfill gas utilization industry to determine if the numerical moisture requirement could be expressed as an absolute dew point or temperature that could be measured at a single location, rather than requiring a 20 °F reduction. Such a requirement would eliminate ambiguity and make it easier for landfills and regulatory agencies to determine compliance. Manufacturers commonly compress the gas first and then cool the gas to reduce the dew point. Manufacturers commonly offer dew points of 38 to 45 °F. They also reheat the final dehydrated product prior to it leaving their treatment unit. Therefore, we propose a dew point reduction to 45 °F, rather than a reduction by 20 °F.
The EPA requests comments on all aspects of this proposed definition of landfill gas treatment.
Continuous monitoring is appropriate for treatment systems because it ensures timely identification of sudden failures in equipment such as chillers and filters and ensures that treatment systems are operating properly to achieve the filtration and de-watering levels specified in the rule. Continuous monitoring is available for the selected treatment system operating parameters and is required to ensure continuous compliance.
For filtration systems, the pressure drop (24-hour average) across the filter would be continuously monitored and maintained above the minimum pressure drop established by engineering analysis or manufacturer's specifications. Alternatively, the owners/operators can request approval to monitor another parameter that indicates proper performance of the filtration system. Pressure drop was selected as a monitoring parameter because it is a good indicator of proper filter operation. A noticeable reduction in pressure drop across the filter indicates a breach of the filter material.
Continuous monitoring of temperature for a chiller-based de-watering system, dew point from a de-watering system that is not chiller-based, or another approved parameter that is indicative of proper performance of the de-watering system, would also be required. If the owner/operator requests to measure a parameter other than temperature or dew point, then the monitored parameter (24-hour average) would have to be kept within the operating range established by engineering analysis or manufacturer's
For chiller-based de-watering systems, we selected temperature as a monitoring parameter because it indicates that the chiller is operating properly and the target 45 °F dew point is achieved. Continuous measurement of the gas temperature at the chiller outlet is required. The temperature measurement device should be located at (or immediately after) the coalescing filter or other direct contact moisture removal device that follows the chiller and removes the condensed moisture. Because the gas will be saturated at the temperature it leaves the filter, the temperature in that location is a good measure of the dew point. Temperature monitors are readily available, commonly used, reliable, and less expensive than alternative monitoring systems.
If a de-watering system that is not based on chilling, for example, a desiccant system, is used, then temperature would not be an appropriate parameter to monitor. In such cases, monitoring of the dew point would indicate whether the system is operating properly to achieve a temperature of 45 °F. Dew point can be continuously monitored using a hygrometer with a dew point readout. The hygrometer should be located after the equipment that performs the moisture removal. Dew point monitors are available and suitable for landfill gas applications.
Data collection is required at 15-minute intervals, consistent with current landfills NSPS requirements for flare pilot flame monitoring and enclosed combustor temperature monitoring that apply to landfills that opt to comply with the control options rather than the treatment option. A 24-hour block average for determining compliance with the treatment system operating parameter limits is sufficient to indicate any significant change in treatment system operation and would be less burdensome than more frequent averaging. Owners or operators of treatment systems would be required to report periods when the 24-hour block average for a monitored parameter (e.g., pressure drop, temperature, dew point) is outside the operating range established in the approved design plan.
In its 2008 decision in
Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 111 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 111 standard was, in fact, “sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and was not instead “caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation” (40 CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction)).
Further, to the extent the EPA files an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
In several prior rules, the EPA had included an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in an effort to create a system that incorporates some flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be violated under circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source. Although the EPA recognized that its case-by-case enforcement discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these circumstances, it included the affirmative defense to provide a more formalized approach and more regulatory clarity. See
To prevent free venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere during control device malfunctions, we propose to include a requirement in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.763(e)) that states that in the event the collection or control system is not operating, the gas mover system must be shut down and all valves in the collection and control system contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere must be closed within 1 hour. Note that 40 CFR 60.753(e) of subpart WWW says “inoperable.” This provision was written when there was an allowance for periods of SSM: Subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.755(e)) allows SSM periods of 5 days for the landfill gas collection system and 1 hour for periods when collection or control devices were “not operable” due to malfunction. During those periods, the emission standards do not apply. However, proposed subpart XXX states that the standards apply at all times, including periods of SSM, and there is no allowance for SSM periods. Thus,
The practice to shut down the gas mover equipment and all valves contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere minimizes emissions from the landfill while the control system is not operating and is being repaired. Compliance with 40 CFR 60.763(e) does not constitute compliance with the applicable standards in 40 CFR 60.762. Compliance with 40 CFR 60.763(e) is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the general duty to minimize emissions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) during control or collection system malfunctions.
Under subpart XXX, landfill owners/operators must keep records of combustion temperature, bypass flow, and periods when the flare flame or the flare pilot flame is out. However, without additional provisions, the EPA would have no way to gauge the severity of an emissions exceedance that may occur when these operating parameters are not being met or when the control device is not operating. Therefore, the EPA is including provisions for landfill owners/operators to estimate NMOC emissions when the control device or collection system is not operating. The landfill owners/operators may use whatever information is available to estimate NMOC emissions during the period, including but not limited to, landfill gas flow to or bypass of the control device, the concentration of NMOC (from the most recent performance test or from AP-42), and the amount of time the control device is not operating. Landfill owners/operators would keep records of the estimated emissions and would report the information in the annual compliance report. (See provisions in proposed subpart XXX: 60.767(f)(7) and 60.768(c)(5).)
In the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, the EPA requested public comments on how to address closed areas of landfills and when to allow removal of controls. Under 40 CFR 60.759(a)(3)(ii) of subpart WWW, landfills owners/operators can exclude from control, provided that the total NMOC emissions of all excluded areas can be shown to contribute less than 1 percent of the total amount of NMOC emissions from the landfill.
As discussed in the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments (71 FR 53277), it has come to our attention that there are situations in which the quantity of gas production has greatly declined in separate closed areas of some landfills, and the methane content has fallen such that the area is producing insufficient gas to properly operate a GCCS and control device. Actual measurements may show that the quantity of landfill gas from the area is less than 1 percent of the total gas from the entire landfill, but using the first order decay equation, it is calculated to be greater than 1 percent of the total gas from the entire landfill.
The EPA proposes in subpart XXX that owners or operators of physically separated, closed areas of landfills may use the procedures in 40 CFR 60.764(b), which determine the flow rate of landfill gas using actual measurements, to determine NMOC emissions. Alternatively, owners or operators of physically separated, closed areas may use subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.769(a)(3)(ii)), which relies on modeled (calculated) NMOC rates. The EPA proposes to allow the use of actual flow measurements because using actual flow measurements yields a more precise measurement of NMOC emissions for purposes of determining if NMOC emissions from the closed, nonproductive area of the landfill are less than 1 percent of the total NMOC emissions from the entire landfill. Landfills would be allowed to stop collecting gas from the closed separated area if it accounts for less than 1 percent of total landfill NMOC emissions.
The measurement approach would be allowed only in closed areas that are physically separated from other parts of the landfill (e.g., with liners). If the closed area is not separated, gas can migrate between that area and the rest of the landfill. In such a situation, measurements might not accurately reflect emissions from the given landfill area because gas could be moving underground and escaping or being collected from an adjacent section of the landfill.
The landfills NSPS requires quarterly surface monitoring to demonstrate that the cover and gas collection system are working properly. The intent of the surface monitoring provision is to maintain a tight cover that minimizes the migration of emissions through the landfill surface. The operational requirements in subpart WWW specify that the landfill must “operate the collection system so that the methane concentration is less than 500 parts per million above background at the surface of the landfill. To determine if this level is exceeded, the owner or operator shall conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30 meter intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover.”
Several commenters on the September 8, 2006 notice asserted that the monitoring of every cover penetration was unnecessary or too burdensome. One commenter believed quarterly monitoring of penetrations was needed and suggested rule amendments to require the surface monitoring be conducted not only in areas where distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover can be seen, but also in other areas such as at the base of gas collection wells or at the top of the gas collection boot.
In proposed subpart XXX, we are reiterating the position that landfills must monitor all cover penetrations and openings within the area of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas collection system is required. Specifically, landfill owners/operators must conduct surface monitoring at 30-meter intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas. Cover penetrations can be observed visually and are clearly a place where gas would be escaping from the cover, so monitoring of them is required by the regulatory language. The regulatory language gives distressed vegetation and cracks as an example of a visual indication that gas may be escaping, but this example does not limit the places that should be monitored by landfill staff or by enforcement agency inspectors. Thus, the landfill must monitor any openings that are within an area of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas collection system is required. The EPA is clarifying this intent in 40 CFR 60.763(d), as follows: Owners/operator must also monitor “* * * where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover and all cover penetrations.”
Regarding how to monitor landfill surfaces including surface penetrations, subpart XXX states that surface emission monitoring must be performed in accordance with section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix A of part 60, except that the probe must be placed within 5 to 10 centimeters of the ground.
Through this proposal, the EPA is presenting a process to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that owners or operators of MSW landfills submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, NMOC emission rate reports, and annual reports by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
The CDX is the EPA's portal for submittal of electronic data. The EPA-provided ERT software is used to generate electronic reports of performance tests that will be uploaded into the CDX using the CEDRI. NMOC emission rate reports and annual reports will be submitted using subpart specific forms in the CEDRI. The submitted report package will be stored in the CDX archive (the official copy of record) and the EPA's public database called WebFIRE. All stakeholders will have access to all reports and data in WebFIRE and accessing these reports and data will be very straightforward and easy (see the WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval link at
Electronic data transmittal and reporting is becoming an increasingly common element of modern life (as evidenced by electronic banking and income tax filing). Electronic reporting of environmental data is also common practice in many media offices at the EPA; programs such as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, Acid Rain and NO
Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA would have air emissions and performance test data in hand; thus, it is possible that fewer or less substantial information collection requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews may be needed. This may result in a decrease in the need for industry staff time to respond to data collection requests.
Affected sources could also see reduced costs as a result of electronic reporting. The electronic reporting system forms will contain only the data elements specified by the regulations. As such, the data required to be included in each report will be clearly spelled out, reducing the time spent in determining required data elements and eliminating the time spent on including unnecessary data. The time savings realized by making the reports standardized could reduce facility costs. Reducing the reporting burden is also achieved through labor savings because some of the required data are already in existing EPA databases and do not need to be submitted again. Existing source files can be reused and already contain a portion of the required data. Electronic reporting could minimize submission of unnecessary or duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA's electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where air agencies continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to submit to the air agencies, thus minimizing the time spent reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be minimized by replacing those records with electronically submitted data and reports.
Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated review of the electronically submitted data. For example, because the performance test data would be readily-available in a standard electronic format, air agencies would be able to review reports and data electronically rather than having to conduct a review of the reports and data manually. Having reports and associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the use of software “search” options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in electronic format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the reported data being accessible to them through the EPA's electronic reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need access (as long as they have access to the Internet).
The general public would also benefit from electronic reporting of emissions data because the data would be available for viewing sooner and would be easier for the public to access. The EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data will be easily accessible to the public and will provide a user-friendly interface that any stakeholder could access.
Another advantage to electronic reporting is that it makes data that can be used for the development of emission factors more readily available. An emission factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant (
The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many of the EPA's emission factors are outdated or not representative of a particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the emission factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we also recognize that emissions profiles on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work practices), and it is important for emission factors to be updated to keep up with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emission factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically. By requiring
The electronic reporting system will also result in information that is submitted in a standardized format. Standardizing the reporting format will require the reporting of specific data elements, thereby helping to ensure completeness of the data and allowing for accurate assessment of data quality. In the past, incomplete test reports have resulted in lower quality emission factors because the data could not be adequately reviewed to determine representativeness. Imbedded quality assurance checks will perform some of the required method calculations, reducing errors in test reports. The system will perform statistical analyses routines to evaluate below detection limit data and outliers prior to performing the emission factor calculations. The result will be a factor of the highest quality rating that is most representative for the source category. And because the system is entirely electronic, it eliminates transcription errors in moving data from paper reports to data systems for analysis. These quality assurance checks and procedures will increase the accuracy of test report data, improve the overall quality of test data, and lead to more accurate emission factors and higher quality emissions inventories. These features benefit all users of the data.
Because those records, data, and reports that will be required to be submitted to the EPA electronically will be stored safely and will be available to all stakeholders at all times, we propose that industry should be required to maintain only electronic copies of these records to satisfy federal recordkeeping requirements. Thus, in this rulemaking, we are proposing to eliminate the requirement to maintain hard copies of records, data, and reports submitted to the EPA's CDX. This provision will benefit industry sources that currently maintain these reports in hardcopy form; no more rooms of file cabinets to store these reports will be needed, while maintaining the accessibility of this information on site. We note, however, that air agencies that require submission of reports in hardcopy form may also require hardcopy records.
We plan to store records, data, and reports submitted to the EPA's CDX electronically in two sites (CDX and WebFIRE), with frequent backups. Upon submission of a report, CEDRI will archive a copy of each submitted report in the CDX (this copy becomes the official copy of record). Both WebFIRE and CDX backup their files on a daily basis. The EPA's National Computer Center (where the WebFIRE files are stored) maintains a dual back-up file (one kept on site and the other stored off site). The CDX also employs a dual backup system to avoid problems in the event of a catastrophe at the location of the servers storing the files. Thus, the EPA has established redundancy into the electronic reporting and storage system to ensure submitted data are retained. In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development, and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with these reports would save industry; state, local, and tribal agencies; and the EPA significant time, money, and effort while also improving the quality of emission inventories and, as a result, air quality regulations.
During implementation of subpart WWW, the question has been raised about whether a landfill needs agency approval to establish higher operating values for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen as allowed under subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.753(c)). Subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(1)(B)) specifically states that the design plan shall include any alternatives to the operational standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting provisions of subpart WWW proposed by the owner or operator. Therefore, the EPA is confirming in subpart XXX that alternative values allowed for under subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.763(c)) should be submitted for approval by the Administrator or the delegated state authority and then, after it is approved, submitted again to the Administrator or the delegated state authority as part of a design plan revision.
Another question has been raised during implementation concerning supporting data requirements for the allowance of an elevated wellfield monitoring parameter. The EPA is clarifying its intent in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.763(c)), such that the demonstration must meet this criteria: A higher operating value must not cause fires and must not significantly inhibit anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens.
Currently subpart WWW does not directly specify when a design plan should be updated and submitted to the Administrator for approval. To clarify questions received during implementation on the timing of submittals of updated design plans, we are proposing in subpart XXX to outline a set of three criteria under a consolidated section 40 CFR 60.767(h) for when a design plan must be submitted for approval. A revised design plan must be submitted for approval: Within 90 days of expanding operations to an area not covered by the previously approved design plan; before installing or expanding the gas collection system in a way that is not consistent the previous design plan; and prior to implementing an approved alternative operating parameter value for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen, if the owner or operator has requested alternative operating parameter values.
The EPA is proposing to maintain the same site-specific design plan review and approval procedures, recognizing the unique site-specific topography, climate and other factors affecting the design of a GCCS. However, the EPA solicits comment on ways to streamline the design plan submission and approval procedures as part of its review of this NSPS. Examples of streamlining may include the potential development of a process by which approved alternative operating parameters could be automatically linked to updates of design plans or development of a process by which alternative operating parameters and updated design plans could be approved on a similar schedule.
During implementation of subpart WWW, the question has been raised about whether a landfill needs agency approval of corrective action timelines that exceed 15 calendar days but are less than the 120 days allowed for installing a GCCS. The intent of the rule is to require agency approval of corrective action timelines only if a landfill does not fix an exceedance in 15 days and is unable to or does not plan to expand the gas collection system within 120 days. We have included provisions in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.765(a)(5)) to clarify this point. Excluding system expansion, all other types of corrective actions expected to exceed 15 calendar days should be submitted to the agency for approval of an alternate timeline. In addition, if a landfill owner or operator expects the system expansion to exceed the 120-day allowance period, it should submit a request and justification for an alternative timeline. We have not proposed a specific schedule for submitting these requests for alternative corrective action timelines because investigating and determining the appropriate corrective action, as well as the schedule for implementing the corrective action, will be site specific and depend on the reason for the exceedance. We clarify that a landfill should submit an alternative time line request as soon as possible (i.e., as soon as they know that they would not be able to correct the exceedance in 15 days or expand the system in 120 days) to avoid being in violation of the rule. If the landfill waits until 120 days after the exceedance to submit an alternative time line, then by the time the regulatory agency has the chance to review the time line and determine if it is approvable, the landfill will already be in violation of the requirement to expand the system within 120 days. After submitting the alternative timeline request, the landfill should work with its permitting authority to communicate the reasons for the exceedances, status of the investigation, and schedule for corrective action.
To address implementation concerns associated with the time allowed for corrective action, the EPA requests comment on an alternative that extends the requirement for notification from 15 days to as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days. Many requests for an alternative compliance timeline express the need for additional time to make necessary repairs to a well that requires significant construction activities. Extending the time period to as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days may reduce the burden and ensure sufficient time for correction. If the EPA were to extend the time period to as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days, then the EPA is also considering the removal of the provision to submit an alternative timeline for correcting the exceedance. Thus, by no later than day 60, the landfill would have to either have completed the adjustments and repairs necessary to correct the exceedance, or be prepared to have the system expansion completed by day 120. The EPA is also requesting input on whether 60 days is the appropriate amount of time that would allow owners or operators to make the necessary repairs.
The clarifications and provisions described in this section apply to new subpart XXX. During implementation of subpart WWW, the EPA learned about potential confusion in the rule caused by the terms “control and treatment system” and “control system.” It was requested that the EPA revise the term “control or treatment system” to read “control system.” We agree that the term treatment system is a subset of the control system as described in subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)) and are proposing to make this change in proposed subpart XXX. While making this change, we also conducted an extensive review of the remainder of the rule text to make several editorial and consistency changes to how the terms “control system” and “collection and control system” were used. As part of this review, we clarified our intent for the terms “device” and “equipment” to be used interchangeably with “system” in the context of the landfills NSPS; and we are proposing to replace these terms with “system” in several places, as appropriate, for consistency. We also identified editorial inconsistencies in the use of how the terms “control system” and “collection and control system” were referenced and we are proposing in subpart XXX to change the text to reference the correct term, consistent with the intent of the rule text.
We propose to include language in subpart XXX to exempt owners or operators of boilers and process heaters with design capacities of 44 megawatts or greater from the requirement to conduct an initial performance test. Available data demonstrate that boilers and process heaters with heat input capacities of 44 megawatts or greater consistently achieve the required level of control, and the exemption of these boilers from testing has been included in several other air regulations, such as those for the chemical industry and petroleum refineries.
We propose to apply new language in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.768(b)(2)(i) and 40 CFR 60.768(c)(1)(i)) by removing the term “combustion” from the requirement to monitor temperature of enclosed combustors. The amendment clarifies that the “combustion” temperature does not have to be monitored, because, for some enclosed combustors, it is not possible to monitor temperature inside the combustion chamber to determine combustion temperature. Instead, temperature can be monitored at another location, as long as the monitored temperature relates to proper operation of the enclosed combustor.
We propose to include a corrected test method cross-reference in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.765(c)(3)) necessitated by the reorganization of Method 21 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
We propose to include definitions of “household waste” and “segregated yard waste” in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.761) to clarify our intent regarding the applicability of subpart XXX to landfills that do not accept household waste, but accept segregated yard waste. We intend for subpart XXX to apply to municipal solid waste landfills that accept general household waste (including garbage, trash, sanitary waste), as indicated in the definitions. We did not intend these rules to apply to landfills that accept only segregated yard waste and non-household waste such as construction and demolition and yard waste.
We are clarifying the definition of “Modification” in subpart XXX to include an increase in the permitted design capacity in terms of not only the volume, but also the mass.
The EPA is exploring options to achieve additional emissions reductions from existing landfills under CAA section 111(d) in an ANPRM. The EPA will consider all of the information it receives in response to the ANPRM in the context of its review of the NSPS and will respond to that information accordingly. In light of our interest in valuing methane reductions in our review of these standards as well as the number of cost-effective measures for existing landfills described in the ANPRM, the EPA is also exploring whether it is reasonable to review the definition of modification for landfills. A revision to the definition may provide additional opportunities to apply cost-effective measures to mitigate landfill gas emissions in modified sources because of the close relationship of control strategies that may apply to both modified landfills and existing sources.
The EPA is specifically requesting public comment on three issues: Landfill gas treatment, wellhead monitoring, and enhanced surface monitoring.
The EPA is requesting public comment on an alternative approach for defining treatment system and treated landfill gas. The alternative approach would define
This technical aspects of this alternative approach are consistent with public comments on previous notices (67 FR 36475, May 23, 2002 and 71 FR 53271, September 8, 2006). It is also consistent with input from the SERs and recent Federalism consultation participants who stated that the extent of filtration, de-watering, and compression can be site dependent, and that different sites require different levels of gas treatment to protect the combustion devices that use treated landfill gas as a fuel and ensure good combustion. The alternative treatment provisions are also consistent with the 2002 proposed definition of treatment system as “a system that filters, de-waters, and compresses landfill gas.” The alternative definition of treatment system gas allows the level of treatment to be tailored to the type and design of the specific combustion equipment in which the landfill gas is used. Instead of meeting numerical specifications for treated landfill gas, owners/operators would specify the level of treatment based on the type and design of the specific combustion equipment that uses the treated landfill gas. Owners/operators would identify monitoring parameters and keep records that demonstrate that such parameters effectively monitor filtration, de-watering, or compression system performance necessary for the end use of the treated landfill gas. We are also proposing to define “treated landfill gas” to mean landfill gas processed in a treatment system. The intent of the treatment option is to require active lowering of the dew point consistent with the better available treatment systems, as such, we did not intend knock-out pots (for example) to qualify.
Owners/operators would develop a site-specific treatment system monitoring plan that would not only accommodate site-specific and end-use specific treatment requirements for different energy recovery technologies, but would also ensure environmental protection. Most landfill owners and operators that treat landfill gas combust the landfill gas in a combustion device that achieves 98 percent destruction of NMOCs. Thus, the treatment option offers a similar level of environmental protection as combusting the landfill gas. Landfill owners and operators that are beneficially using landfill gas are motivated to efficiently treat landfill gas for the intended purpose in order to protect energy recovery equipment, maintain warranties on equipment, and meet the gas specifications often specified in contractual requirements with third parties purchasing the gas. Thus, preparing the monitoring plan would document procedures to ensure that the landfill gas has been adequately treated for the intended use. Having a properly operated and efficient treatment system should minimize downtime of the entire GCCS (or routing of the landfill gas to a flare due to shutdown of end-use equipment) because the end-use equipment will continue to operate properly and will need less maintenance if the gas is treated appropriately. By minimizing downtime of the entire system, the destruction of NMOC will be maximized.
The plan would be required to include monitoring parameters addressing all three elements of treatment (filtration, de-watering, and compression) to ensure the treatment system is operating properly for the intended end use of the treated landfill gas. The plan would be required to include monitoring methods, frequencies, and operating ranges for each monitored operating parameter based on manufacturer's recommendations or engineering analysis for the intended end use of the treated landfill gas. Documentation of the monitoring methods and ranges, along with justification, must be included in the site-specific monitoring plan. In the plan, the owner/operator would also need to identify who is responsible (by job title) for data collection, explain the processes and methods used to collect the necessary data, and describe the procedures and methods that are used for quality assurance, maintenance, and repair of all continuous monitoring systems.
The monitoring plan may rely on references to existing corporate documents (e.g., standard operating procedures, quality assurance programs or other documents) provided that the elements required by the monitoring plan are easily recognizable.
The owner or operator would be required to revise the monitoring plan to reflect changes in processes, monitoring instrumentation, and quality assurance procedures; or to improve procedures for the maintenance and repair of monitoring systems to reduce the frequency of monitoring equipment downtime.
The plan must be kept on site and must be available for inspection. In addition, upon request by the Administrator, the owner or operator would be required to make all information that is collected in conjunction with the monitoring plan available for review during an audit or inspection.
The EPA is requesting public comment on alternative wellhead monitoring requirements in proposed subpart XXX. One alternative monitoring provision could be in the form of an exclusion from the temperature and oxygen/nitrogen monitoring requirements, or a reduction in the frequency of monitoring. For example, the EPA could reduce the frequency of wellhead monitoring for these three parameters (temperature and oxygen/nitrogen) from monthly to a quarterly or semi-annual schedule. Owners or operators would continue to monitor the wellhead for negative pressure.
The EPA is specifically requesting comment on whether this adjustment should apply only to landfills that
The EPA would provide these alternatives to encourage new landfills to beneficially use landfill gas. Both of these alternative options (exclusion or reduced monitoring frequency) would provide monitoring relief to these landfills. Landfill owners and operators must operate their GCCS in a manner that collects the most landfill gas and minimizes losses of landfill gas through the surface of the landfill. In addition, landfills would still have to prepare and submit to the regulating authority a gas collection design plan, prepared by a professional engineer.
As proposed, subpart XXX requires landfill owners and operators to operate each interior wellhead in the collection system with a landfill gas temperature less than 55 °C and with either a nitrogen level less than 20 percent or an oxygen level less than 5 percent. Instead of having the landfill owner or operator conduct monthly monitoring of temperature and nitrogen/oxygen at the wellheads, the EPA is considering relying on landfill surface emission monitoring requirements in combination with maintenance of negative pressure at wellheads to indicate proper operation of the GCCS and minimization of surface emissions. The potential removal of the temperature and nitrogen/oxygen operational standards and associated wellhead monitoring requirements for these three parameters would be complemented by the surface monitoring provisions discussed in this preamble. As discussed in section VII.F and VIII.F of this preamble, we are reiterating that landfills must monitor
Given recent technological advancements in data storage and transmission, the EPA is also considering an alternative to automate the wellhead monthly monitoring provisions. Automation could reduce long-term burden on landfill owner/operators as well as delegated authorities by allowing for a more frequent, but less labor-intensive, data collection system consisting of remote wellhead sensors (i.e. thermistors, electronic pressure transducers, oxygen cells) and a centralized data logger.
The use of continuous monitoring would allow more immediate detection and repair. This would eliminate the time between when the exceedance of the parameter occurs and when it is detected. It could also improve enforceability of the rule by allowing inspectors to review information on the data logger in real time during a site visit. Another advantage to automating the monitoring is that it could provide flexibility for incorporating additional parameters into the monitoring program. The EPA is soliciting comment on this alternative, including the types of parameters that are best suited for an automated monitoring alternative, examples of successful automated monitoring programs at MSW landfills and their associated costs, additional considerations for equipment calibration, and input on any averaging times that might be appropriate to determine when one or more monitored parameters have been exceeded.
The EPA is requesting public comment on potential alternative approaches to the surface emission monitoring in proposed subpart XXX. Subpart XXX collection and control requirements are intended for landfills to maintain a tight cover that minimizes any emissions of landfill gas through the surface. The surface emissions monitoring procedures in proposed subpart XXX require quarterly surface emissions monitoring to demonstrate that the cover and gas collection system are working properly. The operational requirements in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.763(d)) specify that the landfill must “ . . . operate the collection system so that the methane concentration is less than 500 parts per million above background at the surface of the landfill. To determine if this level is exceeded, the owner or operator shall conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30 meter intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover.”
Proposed subpart XXX requires quarterly monitoring and includes provisions for increased monitoring and corrective procedures if readings above 500 ppm are detected. Instrumentation specifications, monitoring frequencies, and monitoring patterns are structured to provide clear and straightforward procedures that are the minimum necessary to assure compliance.
In this document, we are requesting public comment on potential alternatives to the surface monitoring procedures in proposed subpart XXX. Potential alternatives could include provisions such as those in a California regulation (provisions in California Air Resources Board, Final Regulation Order, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Article 4, Subarticle 6, sections 95460 to 95476, title 17, California Code of Regulations)) and include changing the walking pattern that traverses the landfill, adding an integrated methane concentration measurement, and allowing sampling only when wind is below a certain speed.
For subpart XXX, we are requesting comment on reducing the interval for the walking pattern that traverses the landfill from 30 meters (98 ft.) to 25 ft. We are also requesting comment on the addition of a methane concentration limit of 25 ppm as determined by integrated surface emissions monitoring. This would be in addition to the 500 ppm emission concentration as determined by instantaneous surface emissions monitoring. Integrated surface emissions monitoring provides an average surface emission concentration across a specified area. For integrated surface emissions monitoring, the specified area would be individually identified 50,000 square foot grids. A tighter walking pattern and the addition of an integrated methane concentration would more thoroughly ensure that the collection system is being operated properly, that the landfill cover and cover material are adequate, and that methane emissions from the landfill surface are minimized. As part of these potential changes, the EPA is also considering not allowing surface monitoring when the average wind speed exceeds 5 miles per hour or the instantaneous wind speed exceeds 10 miles per hour because air movement can affect whether the monitor is accurately reading the methane concentration during surface monitoring. We are considering this change because measurements during windy periods are usually not representative of the emissions.
The EPA estimated the costs associated with both the proposed subpart XXX surface monitoring requirements (which are the same as the surface monitoring requirements in subpart WWW) and potential changes to the surface monitoring provisions under
Using the techniques discussed in section V.A of this preamble, the EPA estimated the number of landfills that are expected to install controls under the baseline, as well as the proposed option 2.5/40. Then, the EPA applied surface monitoring costs to the respective set of landfills because landfills that must install controls must also conduct surface monitoring. Table 5 of this preamble compares the enhanced surface monitoring costs that would be incurred for new landfills under the baseline and proposed option 2.5/40.
Several factors contribute to the cost of enhanced surface monitoring. Monitoring along a traverse with a 25 ft. interval would increase monitoring time, and thus the labor costs, compared to monitoring along a 30 meter (98 ft.) interval. Monitoring along the tighter traverse pattern would take approximately four times as long, because the distance is approximately four times. For a landfill to conduct the integrated surface emissions monitoring, the EPA assumed the landfill would rent a handheld portable vapor analyzer with a data logger. The data logger is necessary to obtain an integrated reading over a single 50,000 square foot grid. However, the EPA does not expect that requiring an integrated methane concentration would add significant cost because landfills could use the same instrument that they currently use for the instantaneous readings and these instruments can be programmed to provide an integrated value as well as an instantaneous value.
The EPA recognizes that these provisions could reduce surface emissions and that these emissions reductions are difficult to quantify. The EPA also understands that there are potential implementation concerns with these enhanced procedures. Surface monitoring is a labor intensive process and tightening the grid pattern would increase costs. Of the eight landfills expected to install controls under the baseline, it would take these landfills over 29 hours, on average, to complete each quarterly traverse pattern. Tightening the traverse pattern to 25-feet instead of 30-meters would require over 79 hours per quarter, or more than 200 additional hours per year compared to the current 30-meter traverse pattern. At this time, the EPA is not proposing surface monitoring provisions that differ from those outlined in subpart WWW, but we are soliciting comment on techniques and data to estimate the emission reductions associated with enhanced surface monitoring.
The EPA is requesting comment on allowing the use of alternative remote measurement and monitoring techniques for landfills that exceed the surface monitoring concentrations in subpart XXX. The EPA would like information to determine whether or not to allow these alternative techniques to be used to demonstrate that surface emissions are below the methane surface concentrations in the subpart XXX. Alternative remote measurement and monitoring techniques may include radial plume mapping (RPM), optical remote sensing, Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, cavity ringdown spectroscopy (CRDS), tunable diode laser (TDL), tracer correlation, micrometeorological eddy-covariance, static flux chamber, or differential absorption. The EPA is also seeking comment on the frequency of testing and the format of the standard to use these technologies as an alternative to average surface concentration as measured by Method 21. Incorporation of these technologies in subpart XXX would require a change in format of the standard to be consistent with the technology.
The EPA is considering adjusting the emission threshold determinations that dictate when a GCCS must be installed, including variations in the modeling parameters as well as adding site-specific emission threshold determination. These alternatives may provide additional reporting and compliance flexibilities for owners and operators of affected landfills.
As proposed, subpart XXX has three different tiers available to an affected landfill to estimate whether or not the landfill exceeds the NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg per year. The
The EPA is soliciting comment on allowing for alternative Tier 1 default values and modeling techniques based on the amount of organics in the waste. For example, the L
Subpart HH of the GHGRP also provides separate k-values for different types of materials, which could be used as alternate Tier 1 default values in the revised NSPS. Sewage sludge and food waste have the highest k values, followed by garden waste, diapers, paper, textiles, and wood and straw.
The IPCC model employs a modeling method to accommodate separate k and DOC modeling parameters as well as separate calculations for six different categories of organic wastes.
If the EPA incorporates alternative Tier 1 modeling values in subpart XXX, the EPA would also need to allow for an alternative first-order decay model structure to compute a total methane generation rate for the landfill based on the sum of the methane generated from each separate waste stream. This alternative model may incorporate material-specific k and L
Under the proposed subpart XXX, there are three different tiers available to an affected landfill to estimate whether or not the landfill exceeds the NMOC emission threshold of 50 Megagrams per year. If an affected landfill fails a Tier 2 test (i.e., the calculated NMOC emissions are greater than 50 Mg/year), then the landfill must conduct Tier 3 testing or install and operate an active GCCS. The EPA received comments while conducting outreach with small entities that recommended a new Tier 4 surface emission monitoring (SEM) demonstration to allow increased flexibility for landfills that exceed modeled NMOC emission rates if they can demonstrate that site-specific methane emissions are low. This SEM demonstration would be conducted using similar procedures in proposed subpart XXX (see proposed 40 CFR 60.765(d)). If the monitoring finds that methane emissions are below a level that the EPA finalizes in the NSPS review, then installation of a GCCS could be delayed.
As an example, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted the Methane Emissions from MSW Landfills regulation in 2009.
The EPA is soliciting comment about this new Tier 4 option or other ideas for more flexible emission threshold determination “Tiers” and what implementation procedures for each determination may be appropriate. As the EPA takes this new Tier 4 option under consideration, there are some implementation procedures that would need to be established. The EPA requests comment on all aspects of implementing a new Tier 4 option, including the following specific items: (1) Which areas of the landfill would be subject to SEM requirements because these areas would no longer be limited to areas with GCCS installed for applicability purposes; (2) what number of exceedances over a specified time period that would require GCCS installation (proposed subpart XXX specifies a new well must be installed at three or more exceedances in a quarter); (3) what frequency of SEM demonstration (e.g., quarterly monitoring for landfills accepting waste, annual monitoring for closed landfills) is appropriate; and (4) what exceedance level is appropriate for determining if a GCCS must be installed (200 ppm or some other level).
The impacts shown in this section are expressed as the incremental difference between facilities affected by baseline and the proposed reduction of the NMOC emission threshold to 40 Mg/yr from the current NSPS level of 50 Mg/yr. There are incremental costs, emissions, and secondary impacts associated with capturing and/or utilizing the additional LFG under this proposal.
As discussed in section V.B of this preamble, for most NSPS, impacts are expressed 5 years after the effective date of the rule. However, for the landfills NSPS, impacts are expressed 10 years after (year 2023) because the landfills regulations require controls at a given landfill only after the increasing NMOC emission rate reaches the level of the regulatory threshold. Additionally, the regulations allow the collection and control devices to be capped or removed at each landfill after certain criteria are met, which includes having the GCCS operate a minimum of 15 years. Controls would not be required over the same time period for all landfills. The impacts are a direct result of control; therefore, the annualized impacts change from year to year. By 2023, over half of the modeled new landfills are expected to have installed controls and thus, the EPA considered the impacts of the proposal relative to the baseline in 2023, as discussed in section V.B and VI of this preamble. The methodology for estimating the impacts of the NSPS is discussed in section VI of this preamble and in the docketed memorandum “Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014.” The results of applying this methodology to the population of future landfills potentially subject to this proposal are in the
The proposal would achieve an additional 13 percent reduction in NMOC from landfills constructed since 2013, or 79 Mg/yr, when compared to the baseline, as shown in Table 6 of this preamble. The proposal would also achieve substantial reductions in methane emissions. These reductions are achieved by reducing the NMOC threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 40 Mg/yr.
Leachate is the liquid that passes through the landfilled waste and strips contaminants from the waste as the leachate percolates. Precipitation generates the vast majority of leachate volume. Installation of a gas collection system will generate additional liquid, in the form of gas condensate, and it will be routed to the same leachate treatment mechanisms in place for precipitation-based leachate. Collected leachate can be treated on site or transported off site to wastewater treatment facilities. Some landfills have received permits allowing for recirculation of leachate in the landfill, which may further reduce the volume of leachate requiring treatment. Additional liquid generated from gas condensate is not expected to be significant and insufficient data are available to estimate the increases in leachate resulting from expanded gas collection and control requirements.
The additional gas collection and control components required by this proposal have finite lifetimes (approximately 15 years) and these pipes and wells will be disposed of at the end of their useful life. There are insufficient data to quantify the solid waste resulting from disposal of this control infrastructure.
Further, the incremental costs of control for the proposal are not expected to have an appreciable market effect on the waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or the amount of solid waste disposed in landfills because the costs for gas collection represent a small portion of the overall costs to design, construct, and operate a landfill. There is insufficient information to quantify the effect increased gas control costs might have on the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills versus other disposal mechanisms as recycling, waste-to-energy, or composting.
Secondary air impacts may include grid emissions from purchasing electricity to operate the GCCS components, by-product emissions from combustion of landfill gas in flares or energy recovery devices, and offsets to conventional grid emissions from new landfill gas energy supply.
The secondary air impacts are presented as net impacts, considering both the energy demand and energy supply resulting from the proposal. The methodology used to prepare the estimated secondary impacts for this preamble is discussed in the docketed memorandum “Estimating Secondary Impacts of the Landfills NSPS Review. 2014.”
Because NO
The proposal is expected to have a very minimal impact on energy supply and consumption. Active gas collection systems require energy to operate the blowers and pumps and the proposal will increase the volume of landfill gas collected. When the least cost control is a flare, energy may be purchased from the grid to operate the blowers of the landfill gas collection system. However, when the least cost control option is an engine, the engine may provide this energy to the gas control system and then sell the excess to the grid. Considering the balance of energy generated and demanded from the estimated least cost controls, the proposal is estimated to have a net impact of 42,400 megawatt hours (MWh) of additional energy supply per year.
To meet the proposed emission limits, a landfill is expected to install the least cost control for combusting the landfill gas. The cost estimates (described in sections V and VI of this preamble) evaluated each landfill to determine whether a gas collection and flare or a gas collection with flare and engine equipment would be least cost, after considering local power buyback rates and whether the quantity of landfill gas was sufficient to generate electricity. The control costs include the costs to install and operate gas collection infrastructure such as wells, header pipes, blowers, and an enclosed flare. For landfills where the least cost control option was an engine, the costs also
The nationwide incremental annualized net cost for the proposal is $471,000, of which $5,900 is testing and monitoring costs. Table 7 of this preamble presents the costs.
Because of the relatively low cost of the proposal and the lack of appropriate economic parameters or model, the EPA is unable to estimate the impacts of the options on the supply and demand for MSW landfill services. However, because of the relatively low incremental costs of the proposal, the EPA does not believe the proposal would lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill services or waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. Hence, the overall economic impact of the proposal should be minimal on the affected industries and their consumers.
The proposal is expected to achieve additional emission reductions from MSW landfills from landfills constructed, modified or reconstructed on or after July 17, 2014. By lowering the NMOC emissions threshold to 40 Mg/yr, the proposal would achieve additional reductions of 79 Mg NMOC/year, 12,300 Mg/yr methane (307,000 Mg/yr CO
This rulemaking is not an “economically significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Therefore, we have not conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) or a benefits analysis for this rulemaking. Although we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reduce health effects associated with exposure to air pollution related emissions, we have not quantified or monetized the benefits of reducing these emissions for this rulemaking. This does not imply that there are no benefits associated with these emission reductions. We provide a qualitative description of benefits associated with reducing these pollutants below. When determining if the benefits of an action exceed its costs, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct the agency to consider qualitative benefits that are difficult to quantity but nevertheless essential to consider.
The pollutant regulated under the landfills NSPS is “MSW landfill emissions.” Municipal solid waste landfill emissions, also commonly referred to as LFG, are a collection of air pollutants, including methane and NMOC, some of which are toxic. LFG generated from established waste (waste that has been in place for at least a year) is typically composed of roughly 50-percent methane and 50-percent CO
VOC emissions are precursors to both fine particulate matter (PM
In addition to the improvements in air quality and resulting benefits to human health and non-climate welfare effects previously discussed, this rule is expected to result in climate co-benefits due to anticipated methane reductions. In 2012, landfills were the third-largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions in the United States, accounting for approximately 18 percent of domestic methane emissions.
As discussed in detail in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, climate change caused by human emissions of GHGs threatens public health in multiple ways. By raising average temperatures, climate change increases the likelihood of heat waves, which are associated with increased deaths and illnesses. While climate change also increases the likelihood of reductions in cold-related mortality, evidence indicates that the increases in heat mortality will be larger than the decreases in cold mortality in the United States. Compared to a future without climate change, climate change is expected to increase ozone pollution over broad areas of the United States, including in the largest metropolitan areas with the worst ozone problems, and thereby increase the risk of morbidity and mortality. Other public health threats also stem from projected increases in intensity or frequency of extreme weather associated with climate change, such as increased hurricane intensity, increased frequency of intense storms, and heavy precipitation. Increased coastal storms and storm surges due to rising sea levels are expected to cause increased drownings and other health impacts. Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to these climate-related health effects.
As documented in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, climate change caused by human emissions of GHGs also threatens public welfare in multiple ways. Climate changes are expected to place large areas of the country at serious risk of reduced water supplies, increased water pollution, and increased occurrence of extreme events such as floods and droughts. Coastal areas are expected to face increased risks from storm and flooding damage to property, as well as adverse impacts from rising sea level, such as land loss due to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence and habitat loss. Climate change is expected to result in an increase in peak electricity demand, and extreme weather from climate change threatens energy, transportation, and water resource infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate ongoing environmental pressures in certain settlements, particularly in Alaskan indigenous communities. Climate change also is very likely to fundamentally rearrange U.S. ecosystems over the 21st century. Though some benefits may balance adverse effects on agriculture and forestry in the next few decades, the body of evidence points towards increasing risks of net adverse impacts on U.S. food production, agriculture and forest productivity as temperature continues to rise. These impacts are global and may exacerbate problems outside the United States that raise humanitarian, trade, and national security issues for the United States.
While the EPA recognizes the potential methane reductions resulting from the range of changes to the current control framework outlined in this proposal would provide for economic climate co-benefits, the EPA has not presented monetized estimates of these potential co-benefits because the U.S. Government (USG) has not released directly modeled estimates of the social cost of methane (SC-CH
In recent rulemakings expected to have impacts on methane emissions, the EPA has considered the benefits of methane emission reductions in sensitivity analyses using an approach to approximate the value of marginal non-CO
Methane is also a precursor to ground-level ozone, a health-harmful air pollutant. Additionally, ozone is a short-lived climate forcer that contributes to global warming. In remote areas, methane is a dominant precursor to tropospheric ozone formation.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215).
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The information required to be collected is necessary to identify the regulated entities subject to the proposed rule and to ensure their compliance with the proposed rule. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory and are being established under authority of CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data submitted as part of a report to the agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The proposed rule requires very similar information collection requirements as the ICR currently approved for existing landfills under subpart WWW (ICR number 1557.08). However, this ICR will affect new landfills that are constructed, modified or reconstructed on or after July 17, 2014 that have a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million cubic meters.
The proposed rule will require affected landfills to submit a one-time initial design capacity report, and a periodic amended design capacity report if the design capacity is increased above the threshold. The proposed rule will also require an annual or every 5 year submittal of an NMOC emission rate report, depending on whether the landfill conducts Tier 1 or Tier 2 testing, respectively. Prior to installing GCCS, the proposed rule requires the landfill owner or operator to submit a design plan for approval by the delegated authority. The proposed rule also requires a one-time closure report after the landfill ceases to accept waste and another one-time report just prior to the removal or cessation of gas collection and control equipment. The proposed rule requires annual reports to be submitted to document any exceedances or periods when the GCCS was not operating as well an initial performance test of the control system. The proposed rule also requires records to be maintained for at least 5 years. The types of records depend on whether or not the landfill has installed gas collection and control equipment and are detailed in the supporting statement for ICR number 2498.01.
The EPA estimates that no new landfills will install controls during the first 3 years after the effective date of subpart XXX. Therefore, the burden estimates shown in this section represent the burden associated with many of the one-time recordkeeping and reporting requirements as well as the reports that are required from landfills with design capacities under the proposed threshold of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) for the proposal is estimated to be 51 hours per response. An estimated eight responses per year will be submitted each year and there will be approximately 12 annual respondents per year. This burden is estimated to cost $39,300 per year. This includes an annual labor cost of $33,200 and a purchased services cost of $6,100. 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 the 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, the EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the 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 impact of the proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is primarily engaged in the collection and disposal of refuse in a landfill operation as defined by NAICS codes 562212 with annual receipts less than $35.5 million; (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 that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities subject to the requirements of this proposed rule may include private small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions that
Because the ownership of new landfills in the future is unknown, the EPA performed a screening analysis that assumed new landfills would be physically and financially similar to and have the same type of ownership as recently established landfills. Based upon historical data, the screening analysis predicted that four new landfills would be owned by small entities, but that none would be owned by small governments.
One of the four small landfills is predicted to be incrementally affected by proposal. The screening analysis compared estimated annualized compliance costs for the proposal to company sales based on historical data. The maximum ratio of compliance cost to company revenue was 12 percent for this modeled small entity. To determine whether the impacts estimated for 2023 are representative of longer-term impacts to small landfills, the EPA further investigated 30 years of cost information (2014-2043) for the four small model landfills. Over the 30-year time frame, two small landfills are never incrementally affected by the proposal. One landfill has impacts of up to 12 percent (as described above), but impacts of this magnitude only occur in two years of the 30 years. In general, average impacts over the 30-year timeframe are approximately 1 percent or less and maximum impacts are less than 3 percent. In some years, incremental impacts are negative, indicating that the proposed provisions are less costly than the baseline NSPS. These impacts are shown in more detail in the Economic Impact Analysis.
Based upon this analysis, we conclude there will not be SISNOSE arising from this proposal. First, these proposed revisions do not impact a substantial number of small entities. Only two small entities are potentially impacted, which does not constitute a substantial number. Additionally, the impacts to these small entities are not significant. Only one of the two landfills has impacts greater than 3 percent of sales in two of the 30 years examined. The costs incurred by small entities are the result of having to install controls earlier than would have been the case under the existing NSPS. (These costs would have been incurred in later years under the existing NSPS.) There will continue be a lag between the opening of the landfill and the implementation of controls during which the site will be generating revenue through tipping fees. This analysis only considers control costs and revenues associated with the collection of landfill gas and does not estimate the future collection of tipping fees which will be set at a level to adequately plan for known, future requirements.
Given the trend toward larger landfills, it is possible that there will be fewer small landfills in the future than in data from the past 5 years. Additionally, while we assume that the new landfills will be financially and operationally similar to recently opened landfills, numerous factors could influence the actual size, location, and revenue of landfills that open in the future. The model landfills are based on landfills currently in operation that will not be subject to the proposed revisions. All small landfills that will be subject to these proposed revisions will make decisions about their development and operations with full knowledge of the requirements proposed.
Although not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because the EPA has now determined that this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA had originally convened a panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity representatives potentially subject to this rule's requirements. The panel was not formally concluded; however, a summary of the outreach conducted and the written comments submitted by the small entity representatives that the SBAR Panel consulted can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. For more information, please refer to the economic impact and small business analysis that is in the docket. 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.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
This action 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. This action applies to landfills that were constructed, modified or reconstructed on or after July 17, 2014. Impacts resulting from the proposed subpart XXX are far below the applicable threshold. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
In developing this rule, the EPA consulted with small governments pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of the UMRA to address impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The EPA held meetings as discussed in section XI.E of this preamble under Federalism consultations.
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. The proposed rule will not have impacts of $25 million or more in any one year. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, the EPA did consult with state and local officials and representatives of state and local governments in developing this action. The EPA conducted a Federalism Consultation Outreach Meeting on September 10, 2013. Due to interest in that meeting, additional outreach meetings were held on November 7, 2013 and November 14, 2013. Participants included the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities, the U.S.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from state and local officials.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Based on methodology used to predict future landfills as outlined in the docketed memorandum “Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014,” future tribal landfills are not anticipated to be large enough to become subject to the rulemaking. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits comment on this action from tribal officials.
The 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 Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 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. Further, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because there are a small number of new landfills expected to be subject control requirements under subpart XXX in 2023. Further, the energy demanded to operate these control systems will be offset by additional energy supply from landfill gas energy projects.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
The EPA conducted searches for VCS for the Landfills NSPS through the enhanced National Service Standards Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The EPA also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases. Searches were conducted for EPA Methods 2E, 3, 3A, 3C, 21, 25, and 25C of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No applicable voluntary standards were identified for Methods 2E, 21, and 25C.
The search identified nine VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that the nine candidate VCS (ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, ASTM D3154-00 (2006), ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999), ISO 14965:2000(E)) identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other important technical and policy considerations. The EPA's review, including review comments for these nine methods, is documented in the memorandum, “Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart XXX” in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215).
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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.
To gain a better understanding of the landfill source category and near-source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis at a study area of 3 miles of the source category for this rulemaking. This analysis identifies, on a limited basis, the subpopulations that may be exposed to air pollution from the regulated sources and thus are expected to benefit most from this regulation. This analysis does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. To the extent that any minority, low-income or indigenous subpopulation is disproportionately impacted by hazardous air emissions due to the proximity of their homes to sources of these emissions, that subpopulation also stands to see increased environmental and health benefit from the emission reductions called for by this rule.
In regards to the landfills NSPS, the EPA has concluded that it is not
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each municipal solid waste landfill that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification on or after July 17, 2014. Physical or operational changes made to a MSW landfill solely to comply with subpart Cc or WWW of this part are not considered construction, reconstruction, or modification for the purposes of this section.
(b) The following authorities shall be retained by the Administrator and not transferred to the state: § 60.764(a)(5).
(c) Activities required by or conducted pursuant to a CERCLA, RCRA, or state remedial action are not considered construction, reconstruction, or modification for purposes of this subpart.
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given them in the Act or in subpart A of this part.
(a) Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a design capacity less than 2.5 million megagrams by mass or 2.5 million cubic meters by volume shall submit an initial design capacity report to the Administrator as provided in § 60.767(a). The landfill may calculate design capacity in either megagrams or cubic meters for comparison with the exemption values. Any density conversions shall be documented and submitted with the report. Submittal of the initial design capacity report shall fulfill the requirements of this subpart except as provided for in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator an amended design capacity report, as provided for in § 60.767(a)(3).
(2) When an increase in the maximum design capacity of a landfill exempted from the provisions of § 60.762(b) through § 60.769 of this subpart on the basis of the design capacity exemption in paragraph (a) of this section results in a revised maximum design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters, the owner or operator shall comply with the provision of paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters, shall either comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section or calculate an NMOC emission rate for the landfill using the procedures specified in § 60.764. The NMOC emission rate shall be recalculated annually, except as provided in § 60.767(b)(1)(ii) of this subpart. The owner or operator of an MSW landfill subject to this subpart with a design capacity greater than or equal to 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters is subject to part 70 or 71 permitting requirements.
(1) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is less than 40 megagrams per year, the owner or operator shall:
(i) Submit an annual emission report to the Administrator, except as provided for in § 60.767(b)(1)(ii); and
(ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission rate annually using the procedures specified in § 60.764(a)(1) until such time as the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater than 40 megagrams per year, or the landfill is closed.
(A) If the NMOC emission rate, upon recalculation required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, is equal to or greater than 40 megagrams per year, the owner or operator shall install and start up a collection and control system in compliance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(B) If the landfill is permanently closed, a closure notification shall be submitted to the Administrator as provided for in § 60.767(d).
(2) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater than 40 megagrams per year, the owner or operator shall:
(i) Submit a collection and control system design plan prepared by a professional engineer to the Administrator within 1 year:
(A) The collection and control system as described in the plan shall meet the design requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
(B) The collection and control system design plan shall include any alternatives to the operational standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting provisions of §§ 60.763 through 60.768 proposed by the owner or operator.
(C) The collection and control system design plan shall either conform with specifications for active collection systems in § 60.769 or include a demonstration to the Administrator's satisfaction of the sufficiency of the alternative provisions to § 60.769.
(D) If the owner or operator chooses to demonstrate compliance with the emission control requirements of this subpart using a treatment system as defined in this subpart and according to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) of this section, then the collection and control system design plan must include:
(
(
(
(E) The Administrator shall review the information submitted under paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of this section and either approve it, disapprove it, or request that additional information be submitted. Because of the many site-specific factors involved with landfill gas system design, alternative systems may be necessary. A wide variety of system designs are possible, such as vertical wells, combination horizontal and vertical collection systems, or horizontal trenches only, leachate collection components, and passive systems.
(ii) Install and start up a collection and control system that captures the gas generated within the landfill as required by paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section within 30 months after the first annual report in which the emission rate equals or exceeds 40 megagrams per year, unless Tier 2 or Tier 3 sampling demonstrates that the emission rate is less than 40 megagrams per year, as specified in § 60.767(c)(1) or (2).
(A) An active collection system shall:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(B) A passive collection system shall:
(
(
(iii) Route all the collected gas to a control system that complies with the requirements in either paragraph (b)(2)(iii) (A), (B) or (C) of this section.
(A) An non-enclosed flare designed and operated in accordance with § 60.18 except as noted in § 60.764(e);
(B) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC by 98 weight-percent, or, when an enclosed combustion device is used for control, to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent or reduce the outlet NMOC concentration to less than 20 parts per million by volume, dry basis as hexane at 3 percent oxygen. The reduction efficiency or parts per million by volume shall be established by an initial performance test to be completed no later than 180 days after the initial startup of the approved control system using the test methods specified in § 60.764(d). The performance test is not required for boilers and process heaters with design heat input capacities equal to or greater than 44 megawatts that burn landfill gas for compliance with this subpart.
(
(
(C) Route the collected gas to a treatment system that processes the collected gas for subsequent sale or beneficial use such as fuel for combustion, production of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process. The treated gas must be used as a fuel, or must be used for other beneficial uses such as vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process. Venting of treated landfill gas to the ambient air or combustion in a flare is not allowed under this option. (If flares are used, they must meet § 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B)).
(D) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment system shall be subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section. For purposes of this subpart, atmospheric vents located on the condensate storage tank are not part of the treatment system and are exempt from the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section.
(E) Landfill gas that is treated for the uses listed in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) of this section must be treated in a treatment system as defined in § 60.761 that meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) of this section. The landfill owner or operator who is treating landfill gas for the uses listed in paragraph (c)(3) of this section must apply for approval of monitoring parameters that demonstrate that the landfill gas is meeting the definition of treated landfill gas in § 60.761. The landfill owner or operator must meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements listed in §§ 60.766, 60.767, and 60.768 that apply to treatment systems.
(iv) Operate the collection and control device installed to comply with this subpart in accordance with the provisions of §§ 60.763, 60.765 and 60.766.
(v) The collection and control system may be capped or removed provided that all the conditions of paragraphs (b)(2)(v)(A), (B), and (C) of this section are met:
(A) The landfill shall be a closed landfill as defined in § 60.761 of this subpart. A closure report shall be submitted to the Administrator as provided in § 60.767(d);
(B) The collection and control system shall have been in operation a minimum of 15 years; and
(C) Following the procedures specified in § 60.764(b) of this subpart, the calculated NMOC gas produced by the landfill shall be less than 40 megagrams per year on three successive test dates. The test dates shall be no less than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart.
(c) For purposes of obtaining an operating permit under title V of the Act, the owner or operator of a MSW landfill subject to this subpart with a design capacity less than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters is not subject to the requirement to obtain an operating permit for the landfill under part 70 or 71 of this chapter, unless the landfill is otherwise subject to either part 70 or 71. For purposes of submitting a timely application for an operating permit under part 70 or 71, the owner or operator of a MSW landfill subject to this subpart with a design capacity greater than or equal to 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters, and not otherwise subject to either part 70 or 71, becomes subject to the requirements of §§ 70.5(a)(1)(i) or 71.5(a)(1)(i) of this chapter, regardless of when the design capacity report is actually submitted, no later than:
(1) [
(2) Ninety days after the date of commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction for MSW landfills that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE
(d) When a MSW landfill subject to this subpart is closed, the owner or operator is no longer subject to the requirement to maintain an operating permit under part 70 or 71 of this chapter for the landfill if the landfill is not otherwise subject to the requirements of either part 70 or 71 and if either of the following conditions are met:
(1) The landfill was never subject to the requirement for a control system under paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
(2) The owner or operator meets the conditions for control system removal specified in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section.
Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill with a gas collection and control system used to comply with the provisions of § 60.762(b)(2)(ii) of this subpart shall:
(a) Operate the collection system such that gas is collected from each area, cell, or group of cells in the MSW landfill in which solid waste has been in place for:
(1) 5 years or more if active; or
(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade;
(b) Operate the collection system with negative pressure at each wellhead except under the following conditions:
(1) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or operator shall record instances when positive pressure occurs in efforts to avoid a fire. These records shall be submitted with the annual reports as provided in § 60.767(f)(1);
(2) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner or operator shall develop acceptable pressure limits in the design plan;
(3) A decommissioned well. A well may experience a static positive pressure after shut down to accommodate for declining flows. All design changes shall be approved by the Administrator;
(c) Operate each interior wellhead in the collection system with a landfill gas temperature less than 55 °C and with either a nitrogen level less than 20 percent or an oxygen level less than 5 percent. The owner or operator may establish a higher operating temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen value at a particular well. A higher operating value demonstration must be submitted to the Administrator for approval and must include supporting data demonstrating that the elevated parameter neither causes fires nor significantly inhibits anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens. The demonstration must satisfy both criteria in order to be approved (i.e., neither causing fires nor killing methanogens is acceptable).
(1) The nitrogen level shall be determined using Method 3C, unless an alternative test method is established as allowed by § 60.762(b)(2)(i) of this subpart.
(2) Unless an alternative test method is established as allowed by § 60.762(b)(2)(i) of this subpart, the oxygen shall be determined by an oxygen meter using Method 3A or 3C except that:
(i) The span shall be set so that the regulatory limit is between 20 and 50 percent of the span;
(ii) A data recorder is not required;
(iii) Only two calibration gases are required, a zero and span, and ambient air may be used as the span;
(iv) A calibration error check is not required;
(v) The allowable sample bias, zero drift, and calibration drift are ±10 percent.
(d) Operate the collection system so that the methane concentration is less than 500 parts per million above background at the surface of the landfill. To determine if this level is exceeded, the owner or operator shall conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30 meter intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover and all cover penetrations. The owner or operator may establish an alternative traversing pattern that ensures equivalent coverage. A surface monitoring design plan shall be developed that includes a topographical map with the monitoring route and the rationale for any site-specific deviations from the 30 meter intervals. Areas with steep slopes or other dangerous areas may be excluded from the surface testing.
(e) Operate the system such that all collected gases are vented to a control system designed and operated in compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii). In the event the collection or control system is not operating, the gas mover system shall be shut down and all valves in the collection and control system contributing to venting of the gas to the atmosphere shall be closed within 1 hour; and
(f) Operate the control system at all times when the collected gas is routed to the system.
(g) If monitoring demonstrates that the operational requirements in paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section are not met, corrective action shall be taken as specified in § 60.765(a)(3) through (5) or § 60.765(c) of this subpart. If corrective actions are taken as specified in § 60.765, the monitored exceedance is not a violation of the operational requirements in this section.
(a)(1) The landfill owner or operator shall calculate the NMOC emission rate using either the equation provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section or the equation provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. Both equations may be used if the actual year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate is known, as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, for part of the life of the landfill and the actual year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate is unknown, as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, for part of the life of the landfill. The values to be used in both equations are 0.05 per year for k, 170 cubic meters per megagram for L
(i) The following equation shall be used if the actual year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate is known.
The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted from the total mass of solid waste in a particular section of the landfill when calculating the value for M
(ii) The following equation shall be used if the actual year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate is unknown.
The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted from the total mass of solid waste in a particular section of the landfill when calculating the value of R, if documentation of the nature and amount of such wastes is maintained.
(2)
(i) If the NMOC emission rate calculated in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is less than 40 megagrams per year, then the landfill owner shall submit an emission rate report as provided in § 60.767(b)(1), and shall recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate annually as required under § 60.762(b)(1).
(ii) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater than 40 megagrams per year, then the landfill owner shall either comply with § 60.762(b)(2), or determine a site-specific NMOC concentration and recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the procedures provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(3)
(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in § 60.8), the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance test, including any associated fuel analyses, according to the method specified by either paragraph (a)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(B) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(ii) The landfill owner or operator shall recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate using the equations provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section and using the average NMOC concentration from the collected samples instead of the default value in the equation provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(iii) If the resulting mass emission rate calculated using the site-specific NMOC concentration is equal to or greater than 40 megagrams per year, then the landfill owner or operator shall either comply with § 60.762(b)(2), or determine the site-specific methane generation rate constant and recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the site-specific methane generation rate using the procedure specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(iv) If the resulting NMOC mass emission rate is less than 40 megagrams per year, the owner or operator shall submit a periodic estimate of the emission rate report as provided in § 60.767(b)(1) and retest the site-specific NMOC concentration every 5 years using the methods specified in this section.
(4)
(i) If the NMOC mass emission rate as calculated using the site-specific methane generation rate and concentration of NMOC is equal to or greater than 40 megagrams per year, the owner or operator shall comply with § 60.762(b)(2).
(ii) If the NMOC mass emission rate is less than 50 megagrams per year, then the owner or operator shall submit a periodic emission rate report as provided in § 60.767(b)(1) and shall recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate annually, as provided in § 60.767(b)(1) using the equations in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and using the site-specific methane generation rate constant and NMOC concentration obtained in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The calculation of the methane generation rate constant is performed only once, and the value obtained from this test shall be used in all subsequent annual NMOC emission rate calculations.
(5) The owner or operator may use other methods to determine the NMOC concentration or a site-specific k as an alternative to the methods required in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section if the method has been approved by the Administrator.
(b) After the installation and startup of a collection and control system in compliance with § 60.765, the owner or operator shall calculate the NMOC emission rate for purposes of determining when the system can be removed as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(v), using the following equation:
M
(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, Q
(2) The average NMOC concentration, C
(3) The owner or operator may use another method to determine landfill gas flow rate and NMOC concentration if the method has been approved by the Administrator.
(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in § 60.8), the owner operator must submit the results of the performance test, including any associated fuel analyses, according to the method specified by either paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
(A) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(B) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA`s ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(ii) [Reserved]
(c) When calculating emissions for PSD purposes, the owner or operator of each MSW landfill subject to the provisions of this subpart shall estimate the NMOC emission rate for comparison to the PSD major source and significance levels in §§ 51.166 or 52.21
(d) For the performance test required in § 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B), Method 25 or 25C (Method 25C may be used at the inlet only) of appendix A of this part must be used to determine compliance with the 98 weight-percent efficiency or the 20 ppmv outlet concentration level, unless another method to demonstrate compliance has been approved by the Administrator as provided by § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B). Method 3 or 3A shall be used to determine oxygen for correcting the NMOC concentration as hexane to 3 percent. The following equation shall be used to calculate efficiency:
Control Efficiency = (NMOC
(e) For the performance test required in § 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(A), the net heating value of the combusted landfill gas as determined in § 60.18(f)(3) is calculated from the concentration of methane in the landfill gas as measured by Method 3C. A minimum of three 30-minute Method 3C samples are determined. The measurement of other organic components, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide is not applicable. Method 3C may be used to determine the landfill gas molecular weight for calculating the flare gas exit velocity under § 60.18(f)(4).
(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in § 60.8), the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated fuel analyses, required by § 60.764(b) or (d) or this subpart according to the method specified by either paragraph (e)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
(ii) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA`s ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(2) [Reserved]
(a) Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), the specified methods in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section shall be used to determine whether the gas collection system is in compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii).
(1) For the purposes of calculating the maximum expected gas generation flow rate from the landfill to determine compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A)(
(i) For sites with unknown year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate:
Q
(ii) For sites with known year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate:
(iii) If a collection and control system has been installed, actual flow data may be used to project the maximum expected gas generation flow rate instead of, or in conjunction with, the equations in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. If the landfill is still accepting waste, the actual measured flow data will not equal the maximum expected gas generation rate, so calculations using the equations in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii) or other methods shall be used to predict the maximum expected gas generation rate over the intended period of use of the gas control system equipment.
(2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas collectors for compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii)(
(3) For the purpose of demonstrating whether the gas collection system flow rate is sufficient to determine compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A)(
(4) Owners or operators are not required to expand the system as required in paragraph (a)(3) of this
(5) For the purpose of identifying whether excess air infiltration into the landfill is occurring, the owner or operator shall monitor each well monthly for temperature and nitrogen or oxygen as provided in § 60.763(c). If a well exceeds one of these operating parameters, action shall be initiated to correct the exceedance within 5 calendar days. If correction of the exceedance cannot be achieved within 15 calendar days of the first measurement, then either the gas collection system shall be expanded to correct the exceedance within 120 days of the initial exceedance or an alternative timeline shall be submitted. If the owner or operator is unable to correct an exceedance within 15 days, or does not plan to expand the collection and control system within 120 days, then the owner or operator must submit to the Administrator for approval an alternative timeline for correcting the exceedance. The owner or operator must submit an alternative time line for any type of corrective action other than system expansion that will take longer than 15 days. The owner or operator must also submit an alternative time line and justification if they expect a system expansion to take longer than 120 days. Any attempted corrective measure shall not cause exceedances of other operational or performance standards. Any attempted corrective measure shall not cause exceedances of other operational or performance standards.
(6) An owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A)(
(b) For purposes of compliance with § 60.763(a), each owner or operator of a controlled landfill shall place each well or design component as specified in the approved design plan as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i). Each well shall be installed no later than 60 days after the date on which the initial solid waste has been in place for a period of:
(1) 5 years or more if active; or
(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade.
(c) The following procedures shall be used for compliance with the surface methane operational standard as provided in § 60.763(d).
(1) After installation and startup of the gas collection system, the owner or operator shall monitor surface concentrations of methane along the entire perimeter of the collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30 meter intervals (or a site-specific established spacing) for each collection area on a quarterly basis using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization detector, or other portable monitor meeting the specifications provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) The background concentration shall be determined by moving the probe inlet upwind and downwind outside the boundary of the landfill at a distance of at least 30 meters from the perimeter wells.
(3) Surface emission monitoring shall be performed in accordance with section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, except that the probe inlet shall be placed within 5 to 10 centimeters of the ground. Monitoring shall be performed during typical meteorological conditions.
(4) Any reading of 500 parts per million or more above background at any location shall be recorded as a monitored exceedance and the actions specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (v) of this section shall be taken. As long as the specified actions are taken, the exceedance is not a violation of the operational requirements of § 60.763(d).
(i) The location of each monitored exceedance shall be marked and the location and concentration recorded.
(ii) Cover maintenance or adjustments to the vacuum of the adjacent wells to increase the gas collection in the vicinity of each exceedance shall be made and the location shall be re-monitored within 10 calendar days of detecting the exceedance.
(iii) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a second exceedance, additional corrective action shall be taken and the location shall be monitored again within 10 days of the second exceedance. If the re-monitoring shows a third exceedance for the same location, the action specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section shall be taken, and no further monitoring of that location is required until the action specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section has been taken.
(iv) Any location that initially showed an exceedance but has a methane concentration less than 500 ppm methane above background at the 10-day re-monitoring specified in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this section shall be re-monitored 1 month from the initial exceedance. If the 1-month remonitoring shows a concentration less than 500 parts per million above background, no further monitoring of that location is required until the next quarterly monitoring period. If the 1-month remonitoring shows an exceedance, the actions specified in paragraph (c)(4)(iii) or (v) of this section shall be taken.
(v) For any location where monitored methane concentration equals or exceeds 500 parts per million above background three times within a quarterly period, a new well or other collection device shall be installed within 120 calendar days of the initial exceedance. An alternative remedy to the exceedance, such as upgrading the blower, header pipes or control device, and a corresponding timeline for installation may be submitted to the Administrator for approval.
(5) The owner or operator shall implement a program to monitor for cover integrity and implement cover repairs as necessary on a monthly basis.
(d) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions in paragraph (c) of this section shall comply with the following instrumentation specifications and procedures for surface emission monitoring devices:
(1) The portable analyzer shall meet the instrument specifications provided in section 3 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, except that “methane” shall replace all references to VOC.
(2) The calibration gas shall be methane, diluted to a nominal concentration of 500 parts per million in air.
(3) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in section 3.1.3 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, the instrument evaluation procedures of section 4.4 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part shall be used.
(4) The calibration procedures provided in section 4.2 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part shall be followed immediately before commencing a surface monitoring survey.
(e) The provisions of this subpart apply at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction.
Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B),
(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A) for an active gas collection system shall install a sampling port and a thermometer, other temperature measuring device, or an access port for temperature measurements at each wellhead and:
(1) Measure the gauge pressure in the gas collection header on a monthly basis as provided in § 60.765(a)(3); and
(2) Monitor nitrogen or oxygen concentration in the landfill gas on a
(3) Monitor temperature of the landfill gas on a monthly basis as provided in § 60.765(a)(5).
(b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) using an enclosed combustor shall calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications, the following equipment.
(1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder and having a minimum accuracy of ±1 percent of the temperature being measured expressed in degrees Celsius or ±0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is greater. A temperature monitoring device is not required for boilers or process heaters with design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44 megawatts.
(2) A device that records flow to and bypass of the control device. The owner or operator shall:
(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that shall record the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; and
(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
(c) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) using a non-enclosed flare shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications the following equipment:
(1) A heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or thermocouple, at the pilot light or the flame itself to indicate the continuous presence of a flame.
(2) A device that records flow to and bypass of the flare. The owner or operator shall:
(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that shall record the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; and
(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
(d) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) using a device other than a non-enclosed flare or an enclosed combustor or a treatment system shall provide information satisfactory to the Administrator as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B) describing the operation of the control device, the operating parameters that would indicate proper performance, and appropriate monitoring procedures. The Administrator shall review the information and either approve it, or request that additional information be submitted. The Administrator may specify additional appropriate monitoring procedures.
(e) Each owner or operator seeking to install a collection system that does not meet the specifications in § 60.769 or seeking to monitor alternative parameters to those required by § 60.763 through § 60.766 shall provide information satisfactory to the Administrator as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B) and (C) describing the design and operation of the collection system, the operating parameters that would indicate proper performance, and appropriate monitoring procedures. The Administrator may specify additional appropriate monitoring procedures.
(f) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with § 60.765(c), shall monitor surface concentrations of methane according to the instrument specifications and procedures provided in § 60.765(d). Any closed landfill that has no monitored exceedances of the operational standard in three consecutive quarterly monitoring periods may skip to annual monitoring. Any methane reading of 500 ppm or more above background detected during the annual monitoring returns the frequency for that landfill to quarterly monitoring.
(g) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) using a landfill gas treatment system must calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications, the following equipment.
(1) A device that monitors pressure drop across, or other approved parameter(s) for, the filtration system that is equipped with a continuous recorder that shall record such parameters at least once every 15 minutes. Records of hourly and 24-hour block averages computed from the continuous monitoring data must also be retained.
(2) A device that monitors the landfill gas temperature for a chiller-based dewatering system, the landfill gas dew point for a non-chiller-based dewatering system, or the approved operating parameter(s) for the dewatering system at the monitoring locations specified in the approved design plan. The temperature measurement device must be located at or immediately after the coalescing filter or other direct contact moisture removal device that follows the chiller and removes the condensed moisture. The dew point monitoring device should be located after the equipment that performs the moisture removal. Each monitoring device must be equipped with a continuous recorder that records such parameters at least once every 15 minutes. Records of hourly and 24-hour block averages computed from the continuous monitoring data must also be retained.
(3) Owners/operators may use monitoring parameters other than those listed in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section if they demonstrate that such parameters would effectively monitor filtration or de-watering system performance. Owners/operators must develop operating ranges for each monitored operating parameter based on manufacturer's recommendations or engineering analysis and submit those ranges, along with justification, for approval in the design plan required by § 60.762(b)(2). Owners/operators must monitor the required parameters and keep them within the ranges specified in the approved design plan.
(4) A device that records flow to and bypass of the treatment system. The owner or operator must:
(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that records the flow to the treatment system at least every 15 minutes; and
(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure mechanism must be performed at least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B),
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart shall submit an initial design capacity report to the Administrator.
(1) The initial design capacity report shall fulfill the requirements of the notification of the date construction is commenced as required by § 60.7(a)(1) and shall be submitted no later than:
(i) [
(ii) Ninety days after the date of commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction for landfills that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE
(2) The initial design capacity report shall contain the following information:
(i) A map or plot of the landfill, providing the size and location of the landfill, and identifying all areas where solid waste may be landfilled according to the permit issued by the state, local, or tribal agency responsible for regulating the landfill.
(ii) The maximum design capacity of the landfill. Where the maximum design capacity is specified in the permit issued by the state, local, or tribal agency responsible for regulating the landfill, a copy of the permit specifying the maximum design capacity may be submitted as part of the report. If the maximum design capacity of the landfill is not specified in the permit, the maximum design capacity shall be calculated using good engineering practices. The calculations shall be provided, along with the relevant parameters as part of the report. The state, Tribal, local agency or Administrator may request other reasonable information as may be necessary to verify the maximum design capacity of the landfill.
(3) An amended design capacity report shall be submitted to the Administrator providing notification of an increase in the design capacity of the landfill, within 90 days of an increase in the maximum design capacity of the landfill to or above 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters. This increase in design capacity may result from an increase in the permitted volume of the landfill or an increase in the density as documented in the annual recalculation required in § 60.768(f).
(b) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart shall submit an NMOC emission rate report to the Administrator initially and annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) or (b)(3) of this section. The Administrator may request such additional information as may be necessary to verify the reported NMOC emission rate.
(1) The NMOC emission rate report shall contain an annual or 5-year estimate of the NMOC emission rate calculated using the formula and procedures provided in § 60.764(a) or (b), as applicable.
(i) The initial NMOC emission rate report may be combined with the initial design capacity report required in paragraph (a) of this section and shall be submitted no later than indicated in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. Subsequent NMOC emission rate reports shall be submitted annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3) of this section.
(A) [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE
(B) Ninety days after the date of commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction for landfills that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE
(ii) If the estimated NMOC emission rate as reported in the annual report to the Administrator is less than 40 megagrams per year in each of the next 5 consecutive years, the owner or operator may elect to submit an estimate of the NMOC emission rate for the next 5-year period in lieu of the annual report. This estimate shall include the current amount of solid waste-in-place and the estimated waste acceptance rate for each year of the 5 years for which an NMOC emission rate is estimated. All data and calculations upon which this estimate is based shall be provided to the Administrator. This estimate shall be revised at least once every 5 years. If the actual waste acceptance rate exceeds the estimated waste acceptance rate in any year reported in the 5-year estimate, a revised 5-year estimate shall be submitted to the Administrator. The revised estimate shall cover the 5-year period beginning with the year in which the actual waste acceptance rate exceeded the estimated waste acceptance rate.
(2) The NMOC emission rate report shall include all the data, calculations, sample reports and measurements used to estimate the annual or 5-year emissions.
(3) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart is exempted from the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, after the installation of a collection and control system in compliance with § 60.762(b)(2), during such time as the collection and control system is in operation and in compliance with §§ 60.763 and 60.765.
(c) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of § 60.762(b)(2)(i) shall submit a collection and control system design plan to the Administrator within 1 year of the first report required under paragraph (b) of this section in which the emission rate equals or exceeds 40 megagrams per year, except as follows:
(1) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the NMOC emission rate after Tier 2 NMOC sampling and analysis as provided in § 60.764(a)(3) and the resulting rate is less than 40 megagrams per year, annual periodic reporting shall be resumed, using the Tier 2 determined site-specific NMOC concentration, until the calculated emission rate is equal to or greater than 40 megagrams per year or the landfill is closed. The revised NMOC emission rate report, with the recalculated emission rate based on NMOC sampling and analysis, shall be submitted within 180 days of the first calculated exceedance of 40 megagrams per year.
(2) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the NMOC emission rate after determining a site-specific methane generation rate constant (k), as provided in Tier 3 in § 60.764(a)(4), and the resulting NMOC emission rate is less than 40 Mg/yr, annual periodic reporting shall be resumed. The resulting site-specific methane generation rate constant (k) shall be used in the emission rate calculation until such time as the emissions rate calculation results in an exceedance. The revised NMOC emission rate report based on the provisions of § 60.764(a)(4) and the resulting site-specific methane generation rate constant (k) shall be submitted to the Administrator within 1 year of the first calculated emission rate exceeding 40 megagrams per year.
(d) Each owner or operator of a controlled landfill shall submit a closure report to the Administrator within 30 days of waste acceptance cessation. The Administrator may request additional information as may be necessary to verify that permanent closure has taken place in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 258.60. If a closure report has been submitted to the Administrator, no additional wastes may be placed into the landfill without filing a notification of modification as described under § 60.7(a)(4).
(e) Each owner or operator of a controlled landfill shall submit an equipment removal report to the Administrator 30 days prior to removal or cessation of operation of the control equipment.
(1) The equipment removal report shall contain all of the following items:
(i) A copy of the closure report submitted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section;
(ii) A copy of the initial performance test report demonstrating that the 15 year minimum control period has expired; and
(iii) Dated copies of three successive NMOC emission rate reports demonstrating that the landfill is no longer producing 40 megagrams or greater of NMOC per year.
(2) The Administrator may request such additional information as may be necessary to verify that all of the conditions for removal in § 60.762(b)(2)(v) have been met.
(f) The owner or operator of a landfill seeking to comply with § 60.762(b)(2) using an active collection system designed in accordance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii) shall submit to the Administrator annual reports of the recorded information in (f)(1) through (f)(6) of this section. The initial annual report shall be submitted within 180 days of installation and startup of the collection and control system, and shall include the initial performance test report required under § 60.8, as applicable. For enclosed combustion devices, flares, and treatment systems reportable exceedances are defined under § 60.768(c).
(1) Value and length of time for exceedance of applicable parameters monitored under § 60.766(a), (b), (c), (d), and (g).
(2) Description and duration of all periods when the gas stream is diverted from the control device or treatment system through a bypass line or the indication of bypass flow as specified under § 60.766.
(3) Description and duration of all periods when the control device or treatment system was not operating and length of time the control device or treatment system was not operating.
(4) All periods when the collection system was not operating.
(5) The location of each exceedance of the 500 parts per million methane concentration as provided in § 60.763(d) and the concentration recorded at each location for which an exceedance was recorded in the previous month.
(6) The date of installation and the location of each well or collection system expansion added pursuant to paragraphs (a)(3), (b), and (c)(4) of § 60.765.
(g) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) shall include the following information with the initial performance test report required under § 60.8:
(1) A diagram of the collection system showing collection system positioning including all wells, horizontal collectors, surface collectors, or other gas extraction devices, including the locations of any areas excluded from collection and the proposed sites for the future collection system expansion;
(2) The data upon which the sufficient density of wells, horizontal collectors, surface collectors, or other gas extraction devices and the gas mover equipment sizing are based;
(3) The documentation of the presence of asbestos or nondegradable material for each area from which collection wells have been excluded based on the presence of asbestos or nondegradable material;
(4) The sum of the gas generation flow rates for all areas from which collection wells have been excluded based on nonproductivity and the calculations of gas generation flow rate for each excluded area; and
(5) The provisions for increasing gas mover equipment capacity with increased gas generation flow rate, if the present gas mover equipment is inadequate to move the maximum flow rate expected over the life of the landfill; and
(6) The provisions for the control of off-site migration.
(h) The owner or operator who has already been required to submit a design plan under § 60.767(c) must submit a revised design plan to the Administrator for approval as follows:
(1) Within 90 days of expanding operations to an area not covered by the previously approved design plan.
(2) Prior to installing or expanding the gas collection system in a way that is not consistent with the design plan that was submitted to the Administrator according to paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) Prior to implementing an approved alternative operating parameter value for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen, if the owner or operator has requested alternative operating parameter values according to § 60.763(c).
(a) Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or operator of an MSW landfill subject to the provisions of § 60.762(b) shall keep for at least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible, on-site records of the design capacity report which triggered § 60.762(b), the current amount of solid waste in-place, and the year-by-year waste acceptance rate. Off-site records may be maintained if they are retrievable within 4 hours. Either paper copy or electronic formats are acceptable.
(b) Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or operator of a controlled landfill shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible records for the life of the control system equipment of the data listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section as measured during the initial performance test or compliance determination. Records of subsequent tests or monitoring shall be maintained for a minimum of 5 years. Records of the control device vendor specifications shall be maintained until removal.
(1) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii):
(i) The maximum expected gas generation flow rate as calculated in § 60.765(a)(1). The owner or operator may use another method to determine the maximum gas generation flow rate, if the method has been approved by the Administrator.
(ii) The density of wells, horizontal collectors, surface collectors, or other gas extraction devices determined using the procedures specified in § 60.769(a)(1).
(2) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) through use of an enclosed combustion device other than a boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44 megawatts:
(i) The average temperature measured at least every 15 minutes and averaged over the same time period of the performance test.
(ii) The percent reduction of NMOC determined as specified in § 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B) achieved by the control device.
(3) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B)(
(4) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(A) through use of a non-enclosed flare, the flare type (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or nonassisted), all visible emission readings, heat content determination, flow rate or bypass flow rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during the performance test as specified in § 60.18; continuous records of the flare pilot
(5) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) through use of a landfill gas treatment system:
(i) Hourly and 24-hour block averages computed from the device that monitors pressure drop across, or other approved parameter(s) for, the filtration system.
(ii) Hourly and 24-hour block average temperature (chiller-based system) or dew point (non-chiller based system) or the approved operating parameters for the device that monitors the dewatering system operating parameters.
(iii) Records of exceedances of the treatment system operating parameters that were approved in the design plan as required by § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(D).
(iv) Records of the flow of landfill gas to, and bypass of, the treatment system.
(c) Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or operator of a controlled landfill subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep for 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible continuous records of the equipment operating parameters specified to be monitored in § 60.766 as well as up-to-date, readily accessible records for periods of operation during which the parameter boundaries established during the most recent performance test are exceeded.
(1) The following constitute exceedances that shall be recorded and reported under § 60.767(f):
(i) For enclosed combustors except for boilers and process heaters with design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts (150 million British thermal unit per hour) or greater, all 3-hour periods of operation during which the average temperature was more than 28 °C below the average combustion temperature during the most recent performance test at which compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) was determined.
(ii) For boilers or process heaters, whenever there is a change in the location at which the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone as required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(iii) For treatment systems used to demonstrate compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii), all 24-hour periods of operation during which the average operating parameter values are outside of the approved ranges identified in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(D) as those that indicate proper performance of the treatment system.
(2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible continuous records of the indication of flow to the control system and the indication of bypass flow or records of monthly inspections of car-seals or lock-and-key configurations used to seal bypass lines, specified under § 60.766.
(3) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart who uses a boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts or greater to comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) shall keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of all periods of operation of the boiler or process heater. (Examples of such records could include records of steam use, fuel use, or monitoring data collected pursuant to other state, local, Tribal, or federal regulatory requirements.)
(4) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions of this subpart by use of a non-enclosed flare shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible continuous records of the flame or flare pilot flame monitoring specified under § 60.766(c), and up-to-date, readily accessible records of all periods of operation in which the flame or flare pilot flame is absent.
(5) Each owner or operator of a landfill seeking to comply with § 60.762(b)(2) using an active collection system designed in accordance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii) shall keep records of estimates of NMOC emissions for periods when the collection system or control device is not operating.
(d) Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep for the life of the collection system an up-to-date, readily accessible plot map showing each existing and planned collector in the system and providing a unique identification location label for each collector.
(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of the installation date and location of all newly installed collectors as specified under § 60.765(b).
(2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep readily accessible documentation of the nature, date of deposition, amount, and location of asbestos-containing or nondegradable waste excluded from collection as provided in § 60.769(a)(3)(i) as well as any nonproductive areas excluded from collection as provided in § 60.769(a)(3)(ii).
(e) Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep for at least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of all collection and control system exceedances of the operational standards in § 60.763, the reading in the subsequent month whether or not the second reading is an exceedance, and the location of each exceedance.
(f) Landfill owners or operators who convert design capacity from volume to mass or mass to volume to demonstrate that landfill design capacity is less than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters, as provided in the definition of “design capacity”, shall keep readily accessible, on-site records of the annual recalculation of site-specific density, design capacity, and the supporting documentation. Off-site records may be maintained if they are retrievable within 4 hours. Either paper copy or electronic formats are acceptable.
(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(i) shall site active collection wells, horizontal collectors, surface collectors, or other extraction devices at a sufficient density throughout all gas producing areas using the following procedures unless alternative procedures have been approved by the Administrator as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(C) and (D):
(1) The collection devices within the interior and along the perimeter areas shall be certified to achieve comprehensive control of surface gas emissions by a professional engineer. The following issues shall be addressed in the design: depths of refuse, refuse gas generation rates and flow characteristics, cover properties, gas system expandability, leachate and condensate management, accessibility, compatibility with filling operations, integration with closure end use, air intrusion control, corrosion resistance, fill settlement, and resistance to the refuse decomposition heat.
(2) The sufficient density of gas collection devices determined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall address landfill gas migration issues and augmentation of the collection system through the use of active or passive systems at the landfill perimeter or exterior.
(3) The placement of gas collection devices determined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall control all gas producing areas, except as provided by paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) Any segregated area of asbestos or nondegradable material may be excluded from collection if documented as provided under § 60.768(d). The
(ii) Any nonproductive area of the landfill may be excluded from control, provided that the total of all excluded areas can be shown to contribute less than 1 percent of the total amount of NMOC emissions from the landfill. The amount, location, and age of the material shall be documented and provided to the Administrator upon request. A separate NMOC emissions estimate shall be made for each section proposed for exclusion, and the sum of all such sections shall be compared to the NMOC emissions estimate for the entire landfill.
(A) The NMOC emissions from each section proposed for exclusion shall be computed using the following equation:
(B) If the owner/operator is proposing to exclude, or cease gas collection and control from, nonproductive physically separated (e.g., separately lined) closed areas that already have gas collection systems, NMOC emissions from each physically separated closed area shall be computed using either the equation in § 60.764(b) or the equation in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
(iii) The values for k and C
(b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(A) shall construct the gas collection devices using the following equipment or procedures:
(1) The landfill gas extraction components shall be constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, fiberglass, stainless steel, or other nonporous corrosion resistant material of suitable dimensions to: Convey projected amounts of gases; withstand installation, static, and settlement forces; and withstand planned overburden or traffic loads. The collection system shall extend as necessary to comply with emission and migration standards. Collection devices such as wells and horizontal collectors shall be perforated to allow gas entry without head loss sufficient to impair performance across the intended extent of control. Perforations shall be situated with regard to the need to prevent excessive air infiltration.
(2) Vertical wells shall be placed so as not to endanger underlying liners and shall address the occurrence of water within the landfill. Holes and trenches constructed for piped wells and horizontal collectors shall be of sufficient cross-section so as to allow for their proper construction and completion including, for example, centering of pipes and placement of gravel backfill. Collection devices shall be designed so as not to allow indirect short circuiting of air into the cover or refuse into the collection system or gas into the air. Any gravel used around pipe perforations should be of a dimension so as not to penetrate or block perforations.
(3) Collection devices may be connected to the collection header pipes below or above the landfill surface. The connector assembly shall include a positive closing throttle valve, any necessary seals and couplings, access couplings and at least one sampling port. The collection devices shall be constructed of PVC, HDPE, fiberglass, stainless steel, or other nonporous material of suitable thickness.
(c) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(A) shall convey the landfill gas to a control system in compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) through the collection header pipe(s). The gas mover equipment shall be sized to handle the maximum gas generation flow rate expected over the intended use period of the gas moving equipment using the following procedures:
(1) For existing collection systems, the flow data shall be used to project the maximum flow rate. If no flow data exists, the procedures in paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall be used.
(2) For new collection systems, the maximum flow rate shall be in accordance with § 60.765(a)(1).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing general permits for use in Indian country pursuant to the Indian Country Minor New Source Review (NSR) rule for new or modified true minor sources in the following six source categories: Concrete batch plants, boilers, stationary spark ignition engines, stationary compression ignition engines, graphic arts and printing operations, and sawmills. In the alternative, the EPA is also proposing a permit by rule for use in Indian country for new or modified true minor sources in one of the six source categories: Graphic arts and printing operations.
Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151, by one of the following methods:
•
• Email:
• Fax: (202) 566-9744, attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151.
• Mail: Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151, EPA, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
• Hand Delivery: The EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
The public hearing will be held on August 7, 2014, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC. The hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. or after the last registered speaker has spoken, whichever is earlier. A lunch break is scheduled from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. The EPA's Web site for the rulemaking, which includes the proposal and information about the hearing, can be found at:
The hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because this hearing is being held at a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. These requirements will take effect July 21, 2014. If your driver's license is issued by Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma, or the state of Washington, you must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal buildings where the public hearings will be held. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses and military identification cards. We will list any additional acceptable forms of identification at:
Mr. Christopher Stoneman, Outreach and Information Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C-304-01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0823, facsimile number (919) 541-0072, email address:
If you would like to present oral testimony at the public hearing, please register no later than June 27, 2014, by contacting: Ms. Carolyn Childers,
Throughout this document, “reviewing authority,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
Entities potentially affected by this proposed action include the EPA, tribal governments that are delegated administrative authority to assist the EPA with the implementation of the tribal minor source air permitting program and owners, and operators of facilities located in Indian country as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 and as provided in the NSR rule from the following source categories:
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be potentially affected by this action. To determine whether your facility could be affected by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in the final minor NSR program for Indian country (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 49.153). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed under
Do not submit this information to the EPA through
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151.
When submitting comments, remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this notice will be posted on the regulations and standards section of the NSR home page located at
In July 2011, the EPA issued the Indian Country Minor NSR rule that established, among other things, the requirements and process for the preconstruction permitting of minor sources in Indian country. Under the rule, on or after September 2, 2014, an owner or operator must obtain a preconstruction permit from the reviewing authority
On January 14, 2014, the EPA proposed general permits
Today's proposal addresses a second group of activities; the EPA is proposing the use of two types of minor NSR preconstruction permits to help streamline permitting of true minor sources that construct or modify in Indian country and that belong to one of six additional source categories. The first type of permit is a general permit. A general permit is a document that the EPA will make available online that will contain all of the emissions limitations, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to which a source in a given source category would be subject. Sources seeking coverage under a tribal general permit will need to submit a request for coverage or application to the EPA. The second type is a permit by rule, which uses a regulatory-type structure to permit sources by pre-authorizing construction and modification activities carried out in accordance with the permit's requirements. Sources seeking coverage under a tribal permit by rule must notify the EPA that it meets the terms of coverage and is complying with the permit's conditions, but does not need to await approval of a request for coverage.
As our preferred approach, we are proposing general permits for the six source categories: Concrete batch plants; boilers; stationary spark ignition engines; stationary compression ignition engines; graphic arts and printing operations; and sawmills. Specifically, we are proposing general permits for these source categories for permitting affected emissions units and emissions-generating activities in these source categories. As an alternative, for graphic arts and printing operations, the EPA is also requesting comment on whether, in lieu of establishing a general permit, we should instead adopt a permit by rule.
We are making available various permit implementation documents and tools on which we request public comment. In a prior action
In this proposal, we are seeking comment on the following areas:
(1) All aspects of the permit documents and implementation tools of the following six source categories (Sections VI. and IX.):
a. Concrete batch plants;
b. Boilers;
c. Stationary compression ignition engines;
d. Stationary spark ignition engines;
e. Graphic arts and printing operations; and
f. Sawmills.
(2) The appropriateness of using a streamlined general permit/permit by rule application for one source category (Section IX.):
a. Graphic arts and printing operations.
(3) Different aspects of the EPA's conclusion on its control technology review that, because the control measures in this proposal are currently used by other similar sources in other areas of the country, the measures in the proposed permits are technically and economically feasible, and cost effective (Section V.);
(4) The process for sources to address the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) with respect to the six categories in today's proposal (Sections V. and VII.);
(5) Use of throughput limits and capacity limits as surrogate for tons per year (tpy) allowable emission limitations, or, alternatively, establishment of annual allowable emission limitations for each pollutant, and the use of throughput limits as surrogate monitoring measures to demonstrate compliance with tpy annual allowable emission limitations (Sections V. and VI.);
(6) Finalizing both permitting mechanisms for graphic arts and printing operations by providing authorization to construct or modify true minor sources in this category via permits by rule and by providing enforceable limitations to create synthetic minor sources in this category via general permits (Section X.); and
(7) Proposed rule changes to the Indian Country Minor NSR rule in one area (Section XI.):
a. Shortening the general permit application review process from 90 to 45 days for one source category out of the six in this proposal for which the EPA believes it is appropriate:
i. Graphic arts and printing operations.
In this proposal, we are not seeking comment on several issues already
(1) Several administrative aspects of general permits, including:
a. Whether the EPA's proposed approach of incorporating by reference each reviewing authority's approval of a request for coverage into the general permit is necessary and appropriate; and
b. The appropriateness of proposed permit terms related to the reviewing authority's ability to reopen, revise, or terminate an individual approval of coverage under the general permit;
(2) The regulatory framework that the EPA is proposing as an alternative to use to establish permits by rule and the streamlined review and issuance process that the EPA is proposing whereby a source can become covered by a permit by rule by notifying the EPA that it qualifies for the permit, meets the terms of coverage and is complying with the permit's conditions (but not having to wait for the reviewing authority's approval);
(3) Proposal to change the policy in the Indian Country Minor NSR rule to allow the use of both general permits and permits by rule to create synthetic minor sources;
(4) Use of more than one general permit and/or permit by rule for a source at a single location;
(5) Additional source categories for which the EPA is planning to propose general permits and/or permits by rule; and
(6) Proposed rule changes to the Indian Country Minor NSR rule in four areas in three provisions:
a. Adjusting the deadline by which minor sources covered by a general permit need to obtain a preconstruction permit;
b. Extending the permitting deadline for true minor sources within the oil and gas source category;
c. Removing a provision to make clear that sources may seek coverage under a general permit as soon as it is effective and need not wait an additional 4 months; and
d. Adjusting the deadline for oil and gas sources for certain registration-related requirements to be consistent with the proposed permitting deadline extension.
On February 12, 1998,
On August 21, 2006, the EPA proposed the regulation: “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country” (i.e., the Indian Country NSR rule).
The Indian Country Minor NSR rule applies to new and modified minor stationary sources and to minor modifications at existing major stationary sources located in Indian country where there is no EPA-approved program in place. The rule also includes a pre-construction permits program for major sources proposing to construct in areas of Indian country that have not attained one or more NAAQS, i.e., nonattainment areas. After September 2, 2014, any new stationary sources that will emit, or will have the PTE, a regulated NSR pollutant in amounts that will be: (1) Equal to or greater than the minor NSR thresholds, established in the Indian Country Minor NSR rule; and (2) less than the amount that would qualify the source as a major source for purposes of the PSD or nonattainment major NSR programs,
Among other things, the Indian Country Minor NSR rule created a framework for the EPA to streamline the issuance of preconstruction permits to true minor sources by using general permits. We explain this framework further in the sections below.
2. What is a true minor source and how does it differ from a synthetic minor source?
“True minor source” means a source that emits, or has the potential to emit, regulated NSR pollutants in amounts that are less than the major source thresholds under either the PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21, or the Major NSR program for Nonattainment Areas in Indian Country at 40 CFR 49.166 through 49.173, but equal to or greater than the minor NSR thresholds in 40 CFR 49.153, without the need to take an enforceable restriction to reduce its PTE to such levels. The PTE includes fugitive emissions, to the extent that they are quantifiable, only if the source belongs to one of the 28 source categories listed in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, paragraph II.A.4(iii) or 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(iii), as applicable. For example, a hot mix asphalt facility, located in a sulfur dioxide (SO
The “minor NSR thresholds” establish cutoff levels for each regulated NSR pollutant. If a source naturally has a PTE in amounts lower than the thresholds, then it is exempt from the Indian Country Minor NSR rule (see Table 2 and 40 CFR 49.153) for that pollutant. New or modified sources which naturally have a PTE in amounts that are: (1) Equal to or greater than the minor NSR thresholds; and (2) less than the major NSR thresholds (generally 100 to 250 tpy) are “minor sources” of emissions and subject to the Indian Country Minor NSR rule requirements at 40 CFR 49.151 through 161.
The Indian Country Minor NSR rule specified the process and requirements for using general permits to authorize construction of and modifications at true minor sources as a streamlined permitting approach. A general permit, for purposes of this action, is a permit document that contains standardized requirements that multiple stationary sources can use. The EPA may issue a
While the final Indian Country Minor NSR rule contemplated issuance of general permits by the EPA regions, we have determined (for the permits on which we are taking comment here) that a nationwide action is appropriate. Through this action, we are proposing to issue general permits to serve as preconstruction permit authorizations that contain emission limitations and other restrictions to govern how a source may construct, modify and operate. National general permits streamline the permit issuance process by establishing universal requirements through one notice for specific types of emissions activities at multiple sources across the country. The EPA believes that the general permit approach is appropriate for the source categories in today's proposal where the control equipment or techniques are generally similar from region to region.
A general permit also allows a reviewing authority to notify the public through one notice that it intends to apply these requirements to any eligible source that seeks coverage under the permit in the future. This minimizes the burden on reviewing authorities' resources by eliminating the need to issue separate permits for each individual minor source within the source type or category covered by the general permit. Use of a general permit also decreases the time required for an individual minor source to obtain a preconstruction permit because the application process is standardized.
The Indian Country Minor NSR rule describes the process the EPA will use to issue general permits for the minor NSR program. A general permit must be issued in accordance with the requirements in 40 CFR 49.156. Briefly, these requirements address public availability of information, public notification and participation, and public comments. In addition, as discussed in Section IX., we are providing implementation tools to guide sources through a series of questions to determine whether they meet the criteria to be eligible for coverage under a general permit.
Like a general permit, a permit by rule is a standard set of requirements that can apply to multiple stationary sources with similar emissions characteristics. For purposes of this action, a permit by rule would differ from a general permit in that the agency would codify a permit by rule directly into the Indian Country Minor NSR rule. The process for a source to apply for coverage under a permit by rule, and the process for the reviewing authority to grant coverage under a permit by rule, is more streamlined compared to a standard general permit, or a site-specific permit. In particular, a proposed project need not wait for a response from the permitting authority before starting construction under a permit by rule. Section VII. provides a description of the source application process for permits by rule.
The EPA codified the framework it would follow to issue general permits for minor sources in the Indian Country Minor NSR rule in 40 CFR 49.156. While it was not necessary for the EPA to codify this framework to issue general permits, the EPA nonetheless created the regulatory framework to better inform the public of the process the EPA will use to issue general permits. Per the framework, to issue a general permit, the reviewing authority must follow the requirements for public participation contained in 40 CFR 49.157. These provisions require the reviewing authority then to provide a notice that a draft permit is available for comment. The regulations list a number of ways in which a reviewing authority can provide notice to the public, and also allow the reviewing authority to use other means of notification as appropriate (40 CFR 49.157(b)(1)(ii)(E)). We have opted to provide notice to the public regarding the present proposal of general permits for six source categories through use of the
The existing regulations also identify the type of information that a reviewing authority must make available to the public, and list a number of elements to be included in the public notice (40 CFR 49.157(a) and (b)(2)). We are satisfying these requirements in this proposal in a wide-ranging manner by providing the public access to the application forms we will require an applicant to complete, and the other implementation tools for each general permit. (We discuss these tools in greater detail in Section IX. of this preamble.) Many of these requirements relate to information that is best made available when an individual applicant applies for coverage under a specific general permit. We will make information specific to an individual source's request for coverage under a general permit available at the time we provide notice of the source's request for coverage.
After providing adequate public notice of the availability of the draft permit, the reviewing authority must allow a period of at least 30 days for the public to comment on the permit, and to request a public hearing (40 CFR 49.157). We are satisfying these requirements by using this proposed rule to propose, take comments and hold a public hearing on the general permits. Once we finalize a general permit, it will be used by the EPA's regional office reviewing authorities
The regulations set forth the provisions for a final permit to undergo administrative and judicial review in accordance with 40 CFR 49.159. The procedures governing appeals of NSR permits to the Environmental Appeals Board will govern administrative review of these general permits. Issuance of a general permit is a final agency action with respect to all aspects of the general
Although we are using a
40 CFR 49.156(e) describes the procedure for sources to obtain coverage under a general permit. At the time a source submits a request for coverage under a general permit, it must submit a copy of such request to the appropriate Indian governing body for the area of Indian country where the source is locating. The reviewing authority must act on the source's request for coverage under the general permit as expeditiously as possible, but it must notify the source of the final decision within 90 days of its receipt of the coverage request. The source's reviewing authority must comply with a 45-day completeness review period to determine if the request for coverage under a general permit is complete. Therefore, within 30 days after the receipt of the source's coverage request, the reviewing authority must make an initial request for any additional information necessary to process the coverage request and the source must submit such information within 15 days. If the source does not submit the requested information within 15 days from the request for additional information and this results in a delay that is beyond the 45-day completeness review period, the 90-day permit issuance period for the general permit will be extended by the additional days the source takes to submit the requested information beyond the 45-day period. If the reviewing authority fails to notify the source within a 30-day period of any additional information necessary to process the source's coverage request, the source will still have 15 days to submit such information and the reviewing authority must still grant or deny the request for coverage under a general permit within the 90-day general permit issuance period and without any time extension.
If the reviewing authority determines that the source's request for coverage under a general permit has all the relevant information and is complete, it will notify the source in writing as soon as that determination is made. If the source does not receive from the reviewing authority a request for additional information or a notice that the request for coverage under a general permit is complete within the 45-day completeness review period, the request will be deemed complete.
After permit coverage is granted, under 40 CFR 49.156(e), coverage under a general permit becomes invalid if a source does not commence construction within 18 months after the effective date of coverage under a general permit, if the source discontinues construction for a period of 18 months or more, or if the source does not complete construction within a reasonable time. The reviewing authority may extend the 18-month period upon a satisfactory showing that an extension is justified, and the 18-month limit does not apply to the time period between construction of the approved phases of a phased construction project. In those cases, construction of each such phase must commence within 18 months of the projected and approved commencement date.
In Section XI., the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR 49.156(e) to shorten the permit application procedure to 45 from 90 days for one source category in today's proposal: Graphic arts and printing operations.
In Section IX., we describe the implementation documents and tools that we are making available for comment to assist sources with applying for general permits.
For general permits, these elements are discussed in the Indian Country Minor NSR rule promulgated at 40 CFR 49.155(a) and include:
• The effective date of the permit and the date by which a source must commence construction in order for the permit's coverage to remain valid (i.e., 18 months after the source obtains coverage under the general permit);
• The emissions units subject to the permit and their associated emission limitations (and other permit conditions);
• Monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and testing requirements to ensure compliance with the emission limitations; and
• A severability clause to ensure the continued validity of the other portions of the permit in the event of a challenge to a portion of the permit.
In accordance with 40 CFR 49.171(b)(1)(1)(E), we are providing the public with a copy of six proposed general permits covering six source categories: (1) Concrete batch plants, (2) boilers, (3) stationary spark ignition engines, (4) stationary compression ignition engines, (5) graphic arts and printing operations and (6) sawmills. Copies of each of these proposed permits and the following four associated permitting documents are available in the docket for this notice (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151) and at
(1) Request for Coverage (Application);
(2) Questionnaire;
(3) Instructions; and
(4) PTE calculator.
The application for one of the six source categories in today's proposal (i.e., graphic arts and printing operations) is streamlined and asks for contact and location information and basic solvent usage information (more detailed source-specific information would be required from sources seeking coverage under the other five general permits). This is discussed further in Section IX.
The general permits will authorize
We request comment on all aspects of the general permits and the associated forms and documentation provided to assist the stationary sources specified in the permits in complying with the Indian country minor NSR preconstruction permitting and post-construction operating requirements. In Section VIII., we propose, in the alternative, a permit by rule for graphic arts and printing operations. Should we decide to finalize a permit by rule for this category, then we may not finalize the draft general permit for that category. Alternatively, we may opt to finalize both permitting mechanisms for this source category, and may tailor one of the permitting mechanisms to provide authorization to construct or modify true minor sources (i.e., permit by rule) and another to provide enforceable limitations to create synthetic minor sources (i.e., general permit). We specifically request comment on this “hybrid” approach (see Section XI. of the January 14, 2014 proposal
For the six source categories in today's action, we are proposing general permits as our preferred approach. We have crafted our proposal to ensure air quality is protected and to provide more detailed or streamlined approaches, as appropriate. For concrete batch plants, boilers, stationary spark ignition engines, stationary compression ignition engines and sawmills, the EPA is proposing (1) that we retain the 90-day application review process provided in the Indian Country NSR Rule; and (2) that we provide more detailed applications that are appropriate for sources in these categories that involve multiple pollutants where the reviewing authority needs to conduct a review to evaluate whether an individual source meets the requirements in the permit. However, we also recognize that a more streamlined approach may be appropriate for other source categories with few pollutants of concern and in which the operations are less complex. For graphic arts and printing operations, the EPA is proposing to change the underlying rule to provide a shorter application review period (see Section XI.) and a shorter application (see Section IX.). The permit by rule proposed as an alternative for this source category would take that streamlining a step further (see Section VII.).
The remainder of this section outlines the general structure of each of the proposed general permits, and requests comment on issues that are common among the proposed general permits. Specifically, we are requesting comment on:
(1) Whether the EPA's proposed approach of incorporating by reference each reviewing authority's approval of a request for coverage into the general permit is necessary and appropriate; and
(2) The appropriateness of proposed permit terms related to the reviewing authority's ability to reopen, revise, or terminate an individual approval of coverage under the general permit.
This section also describes the general process we undertook for each of the control technology reviews required to establish the terms and conditions of each proposed general permit, and requests comment on our conclusions on several aspects of the control technology reviews.
Additional information and supporting analyses on each of these proposed permits are located in the background documents. These documents are available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151 and online at
Each proposed general permit contains a similar overall structure. The cover page of each proposed permit contains general information on the proposed permit. First, it briefly describes the applicability of the permit to a particular source category or emissions activity the general permit regulates in accordance with 40 CFR 49.156(d)(1). This description varies for each of the proposed permits, depending on the emissions activity covered by the proposed permit.
Second, the cover page limits eligibility for coverage under the permit to true minor sources. We included this limitation to allow permitting authorities the ability to process a permit application for inherently larger sources using the more extended time periods the Indian Country Minor NSR rule provides for case by case, site specific review. We also include this limitation in the proposed permits to remain consistent with our current policy that we will not allow sources to use general permits to create synthetic minor sources.
We recognize, however, that limiting eligibility of these proposed permits to only true minor sources could limit the number and types of sources that could take advantage of the streamlined, general permitting process. In our prior proposal of January 14, 2014, we proposed to change the current policy in the Indian Country Minor NSR rule to allow general permits and permits by rule to create synthetic minor sources. Depending on the outcome of that proposal, we may amend one or more of the final permits in this proposal to allow any minor source to apply for coverage under that permit.
Third, following the eligibility statement, the proposed permit directs applicants to the specific information that an applicant must include in a request for coverage under the permit in accordance with 40 CFR 49.156(d)(2)(ii) and (iii). The request for coverage serves as the permit application and some of the information in the application will differ for each proposed permit. We discuss the application and implementation tools to assist true minor sources in determining whether a source is eligible for coverage under a general permit in Section IX.
Fourth, the proposed permit contains a statement that incorporates each reviewing authority's approval of a request for coverage into the general permit. Sections 1 through 6 of the general permit, and the most current approval of the request for coverage, must be posted prominently at the facility, and each affected emissions unit and any associated air pollution control technology must be labeled with the identification number listed in the Approval of the Request for Coverage for that permitted source. We request comment on the inclusion of this condition in the permits given that the Indian Country Minor NSR rule only requires posting of the approval of coverage.
As we developed the proposed permits, we envisioned situations in which the reviewing authority may need to revise information contained in the approval notice sometime after issuance. For example, a source covered by a general permit may subsequently change ownership. A reviewing authority may delegate responsibilities for the general permit to a tribal air pollution control agency. A source may subsequently need to revise something in its request for coverage that would
Fifth, the proposed permit contains information on the reviewing authority's right to terminate or revise the general permit. The general permit provisions in the Indian Country Minor NSR rule provide the reviewing authority the ability to revise, revoke and reissue, or terminate a general permit. In harmony with those provisions, the proposed permits include authority for a reviewing authority to revise or terminate an approval of a request for coverage. We are adding these provisions to the general permit, under the authority of 40 CFR 49.156(d), to clarify how the Indian Country Minor NSR rule intended these provisions to apply to an individual request for coverage. We request comment on inclusion of these provisions in the general permit, or, alternatively, whether the EPA should amend the Indian Country Minor NSR rule to expressly delineate the reviewing authority's right to revise or terminate an individual source's coverage under a general permit.
Finally, the proposed permit contains a statement indicating that the definitions contained in the Indian Country Minor NSR rule govern use of those terms within the general permit. The statement also refers permittees to a section of the permit that contains definitions that may be specific to the source categories or emissions activities covered by the general permit; and indicates that when a term is not otherwise defined we will interpret that term consistent with normal business use. We, nonetheless, request comment on whether we should include any additional definitions to improve the clarity of the general permits.
Following the general information section, each proposed permit contains the enforceable terms and conditions of the general permit. Section 1 of the Terms and Conditions provisions contains general provisions that, with only a few exceptions, are similar for all the general permits. These provisions contain statements that the Indian Country Minor NSR rule requires in each permit pursuant to 40 CFR 49.155.
In each permit, the general provisions are followed by emission limitations and other operational restrictions or specifications, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are unique to each of the permits. The notice and reporting requirements are followed by a section outlining the reviewing authority's ability to change the general permit, including the approval of the request for coverage, a section on requesting coverage under the permit, and attachments with abbreviations and acronyms, a list of definitions, and a list of reviewing authorities and areas of coverage. Attachments to the concrete batch plant and sawmill permits also contain requirements to minimize fugitive dust emissions. An attachment to the sawmill permit contains sample VOC calculations. Attachments to the graphic arts and printing operations general permit contain requirements for serious, severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas and sample calculations for monthly VOC emissions.
Each permit establishes specific numerical limitations on the quantity, rate or concentration of emissions for each regulated NSR pollutant emitted by each affected emissions unit. For each general permit, in a manner similar to what a permitting authority would be expected to do for an individual source, we established these control technology-based requirements by researching both state and local air quality programs to identify control technologies or other emissions reduction measures used by similar sources in surrounding areas, and by reviewing requirements contained in existing 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 emissions standards that apply to these source categories. Some of the proposed permits build upon the requirements in the 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 emissions standards by including some control technology measures found in state and local agencies' general permits for these source categories. The proposed permit for graphic arts and printing operations draws control information from control technique guidelines for flexible package printing and offset lithographic printing developed by the EPA covering activities in the printing industry.
The background documents for each proposed permit explain the state and local programs we reviewed to identify control technology options in each source category. We believe that, because these control measures are currently used by other similar sources in other areas of the country, they are technically and economically feasible, and cost effective. We request comment on this conclusion, and invite commenters to submit specific information that would indicate that either: (1) The measures in the proposed permits are not economically feasible and/or cost effective; or (2) additional economically feasible and cost effective measures are available and appropriate to include in the final general permits.
In determining specific emission limitations and control measures for each permit, we considered air quality conditions in Indian country. Notably, Indian country contains both attainment and nonattainment areas for different regulated NSR pollutants.
For concrete batch plants, boilers, stationary spark ignition engines, stationary compression ignition engines,
We welcome comments on the use of these setback requirements. We also welcome comments on the types of buildings from which we should establish setback requirements (e.g., schools, nursing homes). We further request comment on whether the setback requirement conflicts with tribal authority over zoning-related matters, and, if so, then on how we should resolve that conflict.
To further protect against adverse local air quality impacts, the proposed permits ensure that no source will cause or contribute to NAAQS or PSD increment violations by prohibiting emissions that would result in such impacts. Thus, reviewing authorities will consider any air quality concerns unique to specific areas that arise after issuance of the general permits in this proposal when determining whether an individual permit applicant is eligible for coverage under the general permit. For example, if a source wants to locate in an area with air quality levels approaching or violating the NAAQS, the reviewing authority may need to request that a source apply for a site-specific permit so that the potential for greater control than that afforded by the general permit can be evaluated.
In conducting the control technology review, we also considered the anticipated growth rate of the source categories. In general, we do not anticipate significant increases in growth for these six source categories for the foreseeable future, as we identified no information indicating that to be the case.
In the Indian Country Minor NSR rule, the EPA stated that it may use the general permit mechanism to issue permits to “similar” types of emissions units or minor sources. This limitation on the ability to issue general permits is consistent with the EPA's longstanding interpretation of the CAA as it relates to the ability of a permitting agency and source to use standardized protocols to meet CAA minor source permitting requirements. The proposed general permits meet the limitation that general permits apply only to similar sources, because each of the permits covers only affected emission units or emissions generating activities that are: (1) Specifically identified by name in the permit; (2) generate the same regulated NSR pollutants in the same manner and magnitude; and (3) are associated only with operations within a defined source category.
The Indian Country Minor NSR rule requires the reviewing authority to establish annual allowable emission limitations for each affected emissions unit and for each NSR regulated pollutant emitted by the unit, if the unit is issued an enforceable limitation lower than the PTE of that unit (40 CFR 49.155(a)(2)). For the six source categories in this proposal, the proposed general permits provide emissions limitations as annual tpy allowable emission limitations, throughput limits or input-based emissions limits, or some combination thereof, depending on the particular source category. In the case of concrete batch plants, we believe that a production limit serves as a reasonable surrogate for a tpy emission limitation, since there is a direct correlation between the amount of material processed and the amount of pollution emitted. We also believe that monitoring throughput rather than actual emissions may provide a more cost-effective method of demonstrating compliance. For example, concrete batch facilities regularly track a facility's throughput, but do not necessarily analyze specific emissions discharges. Thus, reliance on throughput limits provides a more cost-effective approach to regulating emissions and we believe this will enhance the potential for compliance with the proposed permit for this category.
The approach for engines (spark ignition and compression ignition) and boilers also relies on a concept of “surrogate” emissions limitations, but instead of using throughput limits, these permits rely on “surrogate” capacity limits. The capacity limits are set at levels to ensure that the sources remain below certain tpy emissions rates. We also believe that setting capacity limits rather than limitations on actual emissions may provide a more cost-effective and practical method of demonstrating compliance, which will enhance the potential for compliance with the proposed permit for this category.
For sawmills and graphic arts and printing operations, we provide tpy emissions limitations in the permit. We require sources in these two categories to track throughput and to calculate annual emissions based on their throughput using the calculator we have provided. The reason for providing this additional flexibility for the source is due to the uncertainty they face as to the exact nature of their production at the start of a reporting period. For example, a sawmill will not necessarily know what species of wood (each with different VOC content) it will process in a given year. The source, therefore, would need to track its board-feet throughput of each wood species and calculate the emissions associated with the wood species to ensure it stays within the permitted emissions limitations. The same approach is applicable to graphic arts and printing operations that may be engaged in several different types of printing operations that involve different solvents with different VOC contents. Those sources need similar flexibility
In Section VI. below, we request comment on these approaches for the six source categories.
In a related matter, in the January 14, 2014, proposal, we indicated that we granted reconsideration on the issue of allowing reviewing authorities to use general permits to create synthetic minor sources and proposed to change the current policy of not allowing their use for this purpose. If the EPA allows otherwise major sources to qualify as synthetic minor sources through use of general permits, we request comment on specific changes that we would need to include in the limits of each permit to properly regulate synthetic minor sources for the six categories in this proposal. For example, should the EPA establish higher annual tpy allowable emission limitations or surrogate production limits that are just below the major source thresholds for each regulated NSR pollutant, or should the EPA maintain the limitations in the current proposed permits to maintain an adequate compliance margin?
The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services), that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any listed threatened or endangered species, or destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitat of such species. Under relevant ESA implementing regulations, federal agencies consult with the Service(s) on actions that may affect listed species or designated critical habitat.
The NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties (i.e., properties that are either listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places) and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the Council) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Under relevant NHPA implementing regulations, NHPA consultations are generally conducted with the appropriate Tribal and/or State Historic Preservation Officers in the first instance, with opportunities for direct Council involvement in appropriate circumstances, including, for example, consultations in connection with undertakings affecting multiple tribes or states.
The Indian country minor NSR program has increased the number of activities for which the EPA is the permitting authority. To meet ESA and NHPA requirements, we have developed a process for compliance with these laws when issuing the general permits. The EPA intends to consult with the Services and the Council on our general permits and the proposed procedures to address potential effects on relevant protected resources.
For purposes of general permits, the EPA intends to adopt a framework that provides appropriate protection for listed species and critical habitat and historic properties. The EPA believes, based on the evaluation of available information, that the sources that are the subject of this proposal are unlikely to present a significant risk to listed species and critical habitat and to historic properties because they are by their nature small, low emitting sources. However, to ensure listed species and critical habitats and historic properties are protected, the EPA has developed a framework in the general permits that requires the applicant to identify and assess effects before a request for coverage under the general permit is submitted to the EPA. (As noted below, the applicant must submit the assessment to the EPA as part of the request for coverage.) Requiring this assessment should help identify any concerns related to potential impacts on listed species/critical habitat or historic properties early in the process when the greatest opportunities to mitigate or avoid any impacts—including changes to the facility's location or footprint—are available. This framework is similar to procedures established by the Office of Water for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities.
The screening processes developed in the permits for both the ESA and NHPA require the applicant to develop information about the possible effects of the proposed new or modified facility, which includes appropriate outreach to relevant expert resource agencies. Such information and a certification regarding the outcome of the applicant's screening procedures are submitted to the EPA as part of the request for coverage under the general permit. This information is included as an appendix to the applications for requests for coverage under the general permits. The EPA will review this information as part of determining whether a source is eligible for coverage under the general permit. Because we have limited the applicability of the general permits to categories of sources that have low emissions, we do not expect they are likely to adversely affect listed species/critical habitats, nor should they have potential effects on historic properties. However, if, through the procedures required in the permit, a source is determined to have an adverse effect on listed species/critical habitats or potential effects on historic properties, the EPA retains the authority to deny coverage under the general permit and to proceed with source-specific permitting and consultation with the appropriate resource agency(ies).
In the following sections, we provide a brief summary of the source category regulated by each general permit and the areas of each proposed general permit on which we specifically seek public comment. In this preamble, we are not delineating every aspect of the requirements of the general permits. Instead, we refer readers to the proposed permits and associated background information to review all of the detailed requirements we include in each general permit. Although we are soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed permits, we, nonetheless, invite the public to comment on all relevant aspects of the proposed permits.
Generally, we have designed the proposed permits to be as comprehensive as possible and, thus, they contain emission limitations requirements for several, potentially affected emission units that could be found at a source. If a source determines that it does not have all of the emission units that the general permit covers, it can still seek coverage for those units
We are proposing the general permits for true minor sources in Indian country. To be eligible for a general permit as proposed in this action, a source would need to calculate the PTE for all of its NSR-regulated pollutants for all existing, new, and modified emission units. If the total PTE is less than the NSR major source thresholds, then the source is eligible for the permit, provided all other qualifying conditions are satisfied.
A concrete batch plant is an operation that combines various ingredients to form concrete. Some of these inputs include sand, water, aggregate (rocks, gravel, etc.), fly ash, potash, and cement. There are two types of concrete batch plants: Ready mix plants and central mix plants. A concrete plant can have a variety of parts and equipment, including but not limited to: Mixers (either tilt-up or horizontal or in some cases both), cement batchers, aggregate batchers, conveyors, radial stackers, aggregate bins, cement bins, heaters, chillers, cement silos, batch plant controls, and dust collectors (to minimize environmental pollution).
Concrete is composed essentially of water, cement, sand (fine aggregate) and coarse aggregate. Approximately 75 percent of the U.S. concrete manufactured is produced at plants that store, convey, measure and discharge these constituents into trucks for transport to a job site. At most of these plants, sand, aggregate, cement and water are all gravity fed from the weight hopper into the mixer trucks. The concrete is mixed on the way to the site where the concrete is to be poured. At some of these plants, the concrete may also be manufactured in a central mix drum and transferred to a transport truck. Most of the remaining concrete manufactured is cast as products in a factory setting. Precast products range from concrete bricks and paving stones to bridge girders, structural components, and panels for cladding. Concrete masonry, another type of manufactured concrete, may be best known for its conventional 8 x 8 x 16-inch block. In a few cases concrete is dry batched or prepared at a building construction site.
Raw materials for concrete batch operations can be delivered to a plant by rail, truck or barge. The cement is transferred to elevated storage silos pneumatically or by bucket elevator. The sand and coarse aggregate are transferred to elevated bins by front end loader, clamshell crane, belt conveyor, or bucket elevator. From these elevated bins, the constituents are fed by gravity or screw conveyor to weigh hoppers, which combine the proper amounts of each material.
PM, consisting primarily of cement and pozzolan dust, but including some aggregate and sand dust emissions, is the primary pollutant of concern. In addition, there are emissions of metals that are associated with this PM. All but one of the emission points is fugitive in nature. The only point sources are the transfer of cement and pozzolan material to silos, and these are usually vented to a fabric filter or “sock.” Fugitive sources include the transfer of sand and aggregate, truck loading, mixer loading, vehicle traffic, and wind erosion from sand and aggregate storage piles. The amount of fugitive emissions generated during the transfer of sand and aggregate depends primarily on the surface moisture content of these materials.
The extent of fugitive emissions control varies widely from plant to plant. Types of controls used may include water sprays, enclosures, hoods, curtains, shrouds, movable and telescoping chutes, central duct collection systems, and the like. A major source of potential emissions, the movement of heavy trucks over unpaved or dusty surfaces in and around the plant, can be controlled by good maintenance and wetting of road surfaces.
This proposed general permit would apply to the construction of new true minor source concrete batch plants or the modification of existing true minor concrete batch plants located in Indian country. The proposed permit is designed to be as comprehensive as possible and, thus, contains emission limitations requirements for:
• Storage silos;
• Batch drop points;
• Loading transfer areas;
• Weigh hoppers;
• Auxiliary storage bins;
• Non-emergency stationary engines;
• Emergency stationary engines; and
• Setbacks.
The proposed permit requires that the permittee maintain and operate each affected emission unit and any associated air pollution control equipment, considering the manufacturer's recommended operating procedures, so as to minimize emissions of NSR regulated pollutants. The reviewing authority will determine whether the permittee is using acceptable operating and maintenance procedures based on monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the permitted source. (Failure to meet these requirements would constitute a violation of the permit.)
The proposed permit requires each storage silo to be equipped with an audible alarm or an automatic shutoff system that warns when the silo is full. Loading operations cannot be conducted without a warning or shutoff device. Storage silos, weigh hoppers and auxiliary storage bins must be vented to a fabric or cartridge filter. The filter systems can be a centralized system. A suction shroud or other pickup device should be installed at each batch drop point (drum, truck loading etc.) and vented to a fabric or cartridge filter system. Loading and unloading areas must be well lit during non-daylight hours when the permitted source is in operation and visible emissions from each storage silo, weigh hopper and auxiliary storage bin must not exceed 10 percent opacity based on a six-minute average (according to EPA Method 9
The proposed permit contains requirements for non-emergency and emergency engines, in the event such engines are present at the concrete batch plant. Non-emergency compression ignition engines present at the site, excluding nonroad mobile engines, must comply with the following:
• Use diesel or biodiesel containing no more than 15 ppm (0.0015 percent) sulfur;
• Each compression ignition engine that commenced construction on or after June 12, 2006 must be certified to the applicable Tier standards in 40 CFR 89.112 and 40 CFR 1039.101 through 1039.104, for all pollutants, for the same
• Each compression ignition engine that commenced construction before June 12, 2006 shall meet certain standards as laid out in the permit based on the engine's maximum rated power.
If the source includes one or more emergency engines, each emergency engine must be equipped with a non-resettable hour meter and, if using fuel oil, then it must use diesel or biodiesel containing no more than 15 ppm (0.0015 percent) sulfur. Newer emergency engines—model year 2006 or later for compression ignition engines and 2009 or later for spark ignition engines—must meet certain certification or emission requirements that are contained in the EPA emissions standards at 40 CFR part 89, 40 CFR part 90, 40 CFR part 1048 or Table 1 to 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, as applicable. Other, older emergency engines are required to meet certain routine maintenance requirements, and must follow the manufacturer's emission-related operation and maintenance instructions or the permittee must develop a maintenance plan, which must provide, to the extent practicable, for the maintenance and operation of the engine in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions.
The proposed general permit includes monitoring that is sufficient to ensure compliance with the emission limitations that apply to the source, including ensuring the fabric/cartridge filters are operating properly, taking weekly opacity observations and fugitive emissions surveys and meeting certain other requirements. The permit also requires performance testing for emergency engines present at the plant that must meet certain emissions standards, but are not certified by the manufacturer to those standards and are not required to be certified by the manufacturer. This requirement is needed since the EPA certification program for certain engines is voluntary. The proposed general permit includes recordkeeping and reporting sufficient to ensure compliance with the monitoring requirements.
We request comment on all aspects of the general permit for concrete batch plants. We specifically request comment in the following three areas:
The proposed concrete batch plant general permit contains a throughput-based production limit that serves as a surrogate for annual tpy allowable emission limitations. We discuss the use of surrogate limits in Section V.E. above. For portable and permanent concrete batch plants, as stated above, the limit on production is a maximum annual production rate of 2,000,000 cubic yards.
The background information document for the proposed permit contains the approximate tpy emission thresholds for which the throughput limits act as surrogates. The proposed permit does not establish different throughput limits based on the attainment status of the area. We request comment on our use of throughput limits as a surrogate for tpy emission limitations for this source category, and on whether there should be different production throughput limits in attainment and nonattainment areas.
In establishing specific limits for concrete batch facilities, we considered whether we should compute the production throughput limits on a tpy basis, or over a shorter period of time to ensure continuous compliance. For concrete batch plants, where PM
The proposed general permit requires concrete batch plants to locate at least 150 feet from the nearest property boundary and 1,000 feet from the nearest residence. A number of states include setback requirements in their general permits for this source category.
Concrete batch plants can operate as portable stationary sources. A plant will locate in a single area for a specified period of time and then disassemble and relocate to another area. We structured the proposed general permit to accommodate relocation of a plant. A source may identify multiple sites of operation in its request for coverage. The reviewing authority will consider the request for each location, and will specify approval of one or more of these locations in the approval of the request for coverage. If the reviewing authority does not approve a specific location, then the source will need to reapply for coverage under the general permit or for a site specific permit before relocating to this site. The general permit also requires a source to submit a notification to the reviewing authority each time it relocates to a pre-approved site. We request comment on the use of the general permit to authorize relocation of a plant to pre-approved site locations.
A boiler is a device in which water typically is heated to provide steam to drive turbines or engines, supply heat, or process materials. This proposed permit covers steam generating units located at institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities which combust non-solid fossil fuels such as natural gas and fuel oil. This permit does not cover boilers located at electric utilities or boilers used for the burning of other fuels such as coal and wood. This source category does not cover the manufacturers of boilers. The proposed General Air Quality Permit for New or Modified True Minor Source Boilers only covers new, true minor source boilers and modifications of existing true minor source boilers.
Boilers designed to burn fuel oil primarily combust distillate oils and residual oils.
Natural gas combustion boilers are used to generate industrial electric power, produce industrial process steam and heat, and heat residential and commercial space.
The emissions from fuel oil-fired boilers include PM, SO
This proposed general permit would apply in Indian country to the construction of new, true minor source boilers and modifications of existing true minor source boilers. The proposed permit is designed to be as comprehensive as possible and, thus, contains requirements for:
• Boiler capacity limits;
• Emissions and opacity limitations;
• Boiler stacks;
• Fuel usage;
• Setbacks; and
• Emergency engines.
The proposed permit requires that the permittee maintain and operate each affected emission unit and any associated air pollution control equipment, considering the manufacturer's recommended operating procedures, so as to minimize emissions of NSR regulated pollutants. The reviewing authority will determine whether the permittee is using acceptable operating and maintenance procedures based on monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the permitted source. (Failure to meet these requirements would constitute a violation of the permit.)
The proposed permit uses boiler capacity limits as emissions limitations. The permit provides a capacity limit for an individual boiler located in an attainment or nonattainment area of less than 100 MMBtu/hour. Further, the proposed permit restricts capacity by laying out a matrix of combined maximum rating capacity limits for different fuel types (i.e., liquid, gaseous) by boiler size or type. The combined capacity limits vary by area designation/classification. The combined capacity limits are set at levels intended to ensure the covered sources remain below major source levels.
The proposed permit also provides output-based and input-based emission limitations for boilers rated at 10 MMBtu/hour or greater. The proposed permit restricts fuel use to natural gas or fuel oil (i.e., diesel or biodiesel) with a sulfur content of 0.0015 percent or less by weight. In addition, a natural gas unit may use fuel oil as a backup emergency fuel for up to 500 hours per calendar year.
The proposed permit requires that the boiler(s) must not discharge into the atmosphere any gases that exhibit 5 percent opacity or greater averaged over any six-consecutive-minute period. The boiler stack(s) must be above the buildings in the vicinity, discharge vertically, and have no obstructions to gas flow such as rain caps, except for hinged rain caps. Each boiler must undergo biennial tune-ups.
If the permittee is operating the boiler(s) in a severe or extreme ozone nonattainment area, then the permittee must comply with additional requirements. Boilers located in severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas must meet tighter emissions limitations for NO
The proposed permit contains requirements for emergency engines located at the same facility as a boiler. Each emergency engine must be equipped with a non-resettable hour meter and, if using fuel oil, then it must use diesel or biodiesel containing no more than 15 ppm (0.0015 percent) sulfur by weight. Newer emergency engines—model year 2006 or later for compression ignition engines and 2009 or later for spark ignition engines—must meet certain certification or emission requirements that are specified in the EPA emissions standards at 40 CFR part 89, 40 CFR part 90 and 40 CFR part 1048 or Table 1 to 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, as applicable. Older emergency engines are required to meet certain routine maintenance requirements, and must follow the manufacturer's emission-related operation and maintenance instructions or the permittee must develop a maintenance plan, which must provide, to the extent practicable, for the maintenance and operation of the engine in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions.
The proposed permit includes monitoring that is sufficient to ensure compliance with the emission limitations that apply to the source, including visible emissions surveys and an initial and additional periodic performance testing. The proposed permit also requires performance testing for emergency engines located at the same source that must meet certain emissions standards, but are neither required to be certified by the manufacturer nor are certified by the manufacturer as meeting those standards. The basis for this requirement is the fact that the EPA certification program for certain engines is voluntary. The proposed permit includes recordkeeping and reporting sufficient to ensure compliance with the monitoring requirements.
We request comment on all aspects of the general permit for boilers. We specifically request comment in the following three areas:
The boilers general permit contains capacity limits that serve as surrogate annual tpy allowable emission limitations. We discuss the use of surrogate limits in detail in Section V.E. above. In addition, we request comment on the use of these surrogate capacity limits. In lieu of establishing surrogate limits, we request comment on whether, instead of containing surrogate limits, the final permits should contain tpy emission limitations and require the use of monitoring of material use to demonstrate compliance. We also request comment on finalizing two boiler general permits—one intended for smaller, simpler sources that uses capacity limits and one for larger, more complex sources that uses tpy emission limitations together with additional monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. Other requirements in the permits would be essentially the same. Finally, we request comment on the appropriateness of establishing different capacity limits based on the attainment status of the area and whether the specified capacity limits should be lower in nonattainment areas than attainment areas.
The proposed general permit contains emissions limits for sources that locate in severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas. We request comment on the need for these limits.
The proposed general permit requires the exhaust from each boiler or heater to be located a minimum of 50 feet from the nearest property line and 150 feet from any adjacent residential or commercial establishment or place of public assembly. The EPA's 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 regulations do not contain setback requirements affecting boilers or heaters. However, certain states include setback requirements in their general permits for certain source categories, although not necessarily for boilers. We believe that these requirements will minimize the impact of emissions from these sources on localized air quality. These setbacks are less stringent than the proposed setback permit provisions in the proposed concrete batch plant, engine and sawmill permits. We believe a different (lesser) setback requirement is warranted for the boilers general permit compared to the other general permits because of the different type of equipment associated with the stationary sources covered by this proposed permit. This proposed permit would generally be used for institutional, commercial, and small industrial operations which tend to have less air impact. In addition, the boilers general permit contains specific numerical limits on NO
We request comment on whether we should include these setback requirements in the final permit to provide additional protection against adverse impacts to local air quality. In addition, we request comment on whether there are other neighboring types of buildings from which the setback should apply (e.g., schools, nursing homes) and whether to require owners/operators of the boilers subject to the permit to use physical markers on their property to show compliance with the setback requirements.
Engines covered by these proposed general permits
The proposed general permits cover both stationary non-emergency and emergency stationary ICE. Emergency stationary ICE include any stationary internal combustion engine whose operation is limited to emergency situations and for which testing and maintenance are required. Examples include stationary ICE used to produce power for critical networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the normal power source, if the facility runs on its own power production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water in the case of fire, flood, or other adverse event. Stationary ICE used to supply power to an electric grid or that supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another entity are not considered to be emergency engines.
There are two types of ICE: Spark ignition and compression ignition. A spark ignition engine is a gasoline, natural gas, or any other type of engine with a spark plug (or other sparking device) and with operating characteristics significantly similar to the theoretical Otto combustion cycle. Spark ignition engines usually use a throttle to regulate intake air flow to control power during normal operation. Dual-fuel engines in which a liquid fuel (typically diesel fuel) is used for compression ignition ICE and a gaseous fuel (typically natural gas) is used as the primary fuel at an annual average ratio of less than 2 parts diesel fuel to 100 parts total fuel on an energy equivalent basis are spark ignition engines. A compression ignition ICE is defined as an engine that is not a spark ignition engine. These engines are typically diesel engines where the heat generated from compression is enough to initiate the combustion process, without needing an external spark.
Gasoline, diesel (No. 2 fuel oil), and natural gas are the three primary fuels used for ICE. Most natural gas-fired reciprocating engines are used in the natural gas industry at pipeline compressor and storage stations and at gas processing plants.
Large stationary diesel ICE (with capacities greater than 600 hp) are often used in oil and gas exploration and production. These engines, in groups of 3 to 5, supply mechanical power to operate drilling (rotary table), mud pumping, and hoisting equipment, and may also operate pumps or auxiliary power generators. Another frequent application of large stationary diesel ICE is electricity generation for both base and standby service. Smaller uses include irrigation, hoisting, and nuclear power plant emergency cooling water pump operation.
The primary criteria pollutants emitted by engines are NO
Three generic control techniques have been developed for reciprocating engines: Parametric controls (timing and operating at a leaner air-to-fuel ratio); combustion modifications such as advanced engine design for new sources or major modification to existing sources (clean-burn cylinder head designs and pre-stratified charge combustion for rich-burn engines); and post-combustion catalytic controls installed on the engine exhaust system. Post-combustion catalytic technologies include selective catalytic reduction, nonselective catalytic reduction, and CO oxidation catalysts.
These two proposed general permits would apply to the construction of new, true minor source stationary compression ignition and spark ignition engines or the modification of existing, true minor source engines located in Indian country. We created separate proposed general permits, one for compression ignition engines and one for spark ignition engines, because there are different requirements for each type of engine. Both engine general permits cover emergency and non-emergency engines. (Sources that only have emergency engines and also intend to construct a boiler may want to consider the boiler general permit, which allows for greater boiler and emergency engine capacity.) However, we have written both proposed general permits to accommodate emergency engines of both engine types because the emissions from emergency engines are relatively small and we did not want a particular source to not be able to qualify for the general permit if, for example, they happen to have a small compression ignition emergency engine at a source of non-emergency spark ignition engines. As a result, the spark ignition engine general permit covers non-emergency spark ignition engines, emergency spark ignition engines, and emergency compression ignition engines. The compression ignition general permit covers non-emergency compression ignition engines, emergency compression ignition engines, and emergency spark ignition engines.
The proposed general permits for compression ignition and spark ignition engines require that the permittee, considering the manufacturer's recommended operating procedures, maintain and operate each affected emission unit and any associated air pollution control equipment so as to minimize emissions of NSR regulated pollutants. The reviewing authority will determine whether the permittee is using acceptable operating and maintenance procedures based on monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the permitted source. (Failure to meet these requirements would constitute a violation of the permit.)
The proposed compression ignition general permit imposes different requirements depending upon where the source chooses to locate or modify and whether the engine is for emergency or non-emergency purposes. The proposed permit contains a setback requirement. Each non-emergency compression ignition engine must not be located less than 150 feet from the nearest property boundary and 1,000 feet from the nearest residence.
The proposed compression ignition general permit contains two options for meeting capacity limits for engines locating in ozone attainment, unclassifiable or attainment/unclassifiable areas or ozone marginal and moderate nonattainment areas. Option 1 allows for a source to have greater non-emergency engine capacity (up to 3800 hp) if the non-emergency engines are within a set of certain parameters, mainly related to whether the engines are part of a generator set. These types of engines must meet much more stringent emission limits, resulting in fewer emissions, and, thus, the permit provides the ability to increase the capacity limit. Option 2 allows for less capacity for non-emergency engines (1900 hp) but does not require non-emergency engines to be within the specific parameters in Option 1. The proposed permit also contains an additional overall capacity limit for engines locating or modifying in serious ozone nonattainment areas (1100 hp for non-emergency engines and 750 hp for emergency engines) and does not allow permit coverage for engines locating or modifying in severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas.
The capacity limits restrict the size of engines that would be covered by the proposed general permit. The proposed capacity limits serve as surrogate emissions limitations and are set at levels that correspond to emission rates intended to ensure emissions from sources covered by the general permit are below major source levels.
The proposed compression ignition permit also includes requirements for auxiliary heaters present at the new or modified facility so that the permittee would not need to seek a separate permit for that emissions unit. For the auxiliary heaters, the permit provides capacity limits which require that the combined maximum heat input of all auxiliary heaters not be greater than 10 MMBtu/hour and they can only burn natural gas. Non-emergency compression ignition engines can only use distillate fuel (i.e., diesel or biodiesel) containing no more than 15 ppm (0.0015 percent) sulfur by weight. Each of the engines must be model year 2014 or later and certified by the manufacturer to the applicable standards in 40 CFR part 89 and the Tier 4 standards in 40 CFR 1039.101 through 1039.104, for all pollutants, for the same model year and maximum engine power.
Under the proposed spark ignition general permit, spark ignition engines must meet certain capacity limits intended to ensure the sources operate as minor sources. The combined maximum engine power of all non-emergency spark ignition engines at a single permitted source location shall be no greater than 1750 hp. The combined maximum engine power of all
The proposed spark ignition general permit also contains a setback requirement. Each non-emergency spark ignition engine must not be located less than 150 feet from the nearest property boundary and 1,000 feet from the nearest residence.
The proposed compression ignition and spark ignition permits contain requirements for emergency engines located at the same source as the boiler(s), in the event such engines are present at the same facility as the boiler(s). Each emergency engine must be equipped with a non-resettable hour meter and, if using fuel oil, then it must use diesel or biodiesel containing no more than 15 ppm (0.0015 percent) sulfur by weight. Newer emergency engines—model year 2006 or later for compression ignition engines and 2009 or later for spark ignition engines—must meet certain certification or emission requirements that are specified in the EPA emissions standards at 40 CFR part 89, 40 CFR part 90 and 40 CFR part 1048 or Table 1 to 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, as applicable. Older emergency engines are required to meet certain routine maintenance requirements, and must follow the manufacturer's emission-related operation and maintenance instructions or the permittee must develop a maintenance plan, which must provide, to the extent practicable, for the maintenance and operation of the engine in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions.
The proposed compression ignition and spark ignition permits include monitoring that is sufficient to ensure compliance with the emission limitations that apply to the covered ICE, including requirements to monitor fuel use on a monthly basis for each engine and to conduct performance tests for engines not certified by the manufacturer. The proposed permits also require performance testing for spark ignition emergency engines that must meet certain emissions standards, but are neither required to be certified by the manufacturer nor certified by the manufacturer to those standards and are not required to be certified by the manufacturer. This requirement is necessary because the EPA certification program for certain engines is voluntary. The proposed spark ignition general permit also includes, for each engine equipped with an air-to-fuel ratio controller, a requirement for proper maintenance and operation of the engine and emissions control device to ensure its smooth operation. The proposed permits include recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
We request comment on all aspects of the proposed general permits for engines. We specifically request comment in the following four areas:
In addition to fuel sulfur content limits and output-based limitations for auxiliary heaters, the EPA is proposing to use capacity limits as surrogate annual allowable emission limitations for the engines source category. The capacity limits are set at levels intended to ensure that the engines operate as minor sources.
The proposed general permits require stationary spark ignition and compression ignition engines to locate at least 150 feet from the nearest property boundary and 1,000 feet from the nearest residence. The EPA's 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 regulations do not contain setback requirements affecting these engines. However, certain states include setback requirements in their general permits for certain source categories, but not necessarily for engines alone. We believe that it is prudent to propose a setback for engines due to the potential for local scale air quality impacts due to NO
The proposed general permit for compression ignition engines contains additional requirements for sources that locate or modify in serious ozone nonattainment areas. These requirements consist of overall capacity limits for non-emergency and emergency engines. We added this requirement to provide extra air quality protection for areas with poorer ozone air quality. We request comment on the need for these enhanced requirements in serious ozone nonattainment areas.
The proposed compression ignition general permit contains requirements for engines locating or modifying in marginal, moderate and serious ozone nonattainment areas. Engines locating or modifying in severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas are not eligible for coverage under the proposed general permit. This is because the appropriate capacity limits that EPA would set in order to keep an engine from being a major NO
The term “graphic arts” as used here means four basic processes of the printing industry: Web offset lithography, web letterpress, rotogravure, and flexography.
VOCs are the primary pollutant of concern from printing operations. Such emissions vary with the printing process, ink formulation and coverage, press size and speed, and operating time. The type of paper (coated or uncoated) has little effect on the quantity of emissions, although low levels of VOC emissions are derived from the paper stock during drying. Most of the solvent contained in the ink and used for dampening and cleanup is eventually emitted into the atmosphere; however, some solvent does remain with the printed product leaving the plant and is released to the atmosphere later. Overall, VOC emissions can be computed using a material balance concept, except in cases where a direct flame dryer is used and some of the solvent is thermally degraded.
This proposed general permit would apply to the construction of new, true minor source graphic arts and printing facilities or the modification of existing, true minor source facilities, located in Indian country.
The proposed permit requires that the permittee maintain and operate each affected emission unit and any associated air pollution control equipment, considering the manufacturer's recommended operating procedures, so as to minimize emissions of NSR regulated pollutants. The reviewing authority will determine whether the permittee is using acceptable operating and maintenance procedures based on monitoring results, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the permitted source. (Failure to meet these requirements would constitute a violation of the permit.)
This proposed general permit is not available to sources that are major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Under section 112 of the CAA, a source is considered major for HAPs if it emits 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAPs or 10 tpy of any single HAP. We are proposing that the general permit for this source category not be applicable to a major source of HAPs because additional requirements apply to these types of source and we believe the general permits should be reserved for sources with straightforward permitting requirements. We believe that permit applications for such major sources should receive greater scrutiny than a general permit would provide. We welcome comment on this issue.
The proposed permit requires that VOC emissions from an individual printing press (i.e., printing line) not exceed 25 tpy. We included this requirement to avoid the need for add-on control requirements. We believe smaller printing presses (i.e., those that emit less than 25 tpy of VOC) do not warrant the need for add-on controls. Sources applying for this permit that nevertheless intend to install add-on controls would not be prohibited from obtaining this general permit, but they would need to be able to demonstrate compliance with the permit without the consideration of controls. Thus, this general permit is only intended for smaller graphic arts and printing operations, as larger operations would likely require more site-specific review and add-on controls.
The proposed permit also requires that VOC emissions from the combination of all graphic arts and printing operations (all printing lines at the facility) not exceed certain tpy limitations that vary by ozone area designation and classification. For nonattainment areas, the numerical limitations become more stringent as the classification increases from marginal to extreme.
For flexible packaging printing operations, the permit contains VOC content limitations for each coating, ink or adhesive used. However, the permit provides an exemption that allows up to 110 gallons per calendar year of VOC-containing material to not meet the VOC content limitations standards for graphic arts and printing operations located in areas designated as ozone attainment, unclassifiable, attainment/unclassifiable, marginal nonattainment, or moderate nonattainment. This is to allow the use of a small amount of specialty coating, inks, or adhesives.
For offset lithographic and letterpress printing operations, the permit contains VOC limitations that vary depending upon the type of printing operation. The permit provides limitations for heatset web offset lithographic printing, sheet-fed offset lithographic printing and coldset web offset lithographic printing. The permit provides an exemption from VOC limitations for sheet-fed offset lithographic printing operations that use sheet-fed presses with sheet sizes of 11 inches by 17 inches or smaller OR any press with a total fountain solution reservoir of less than 1 gallon.
The permit provides additional VOC limits for permitted sources that locate or modify in a serious, severe or extreme ozone nonattainment area for the following materials:
• Lithographic ink;
• Letterpress ink;
• Rotogravure ink;
• Flexographic ink non-porous substrate;
• Flexographic ink porous substrate;
• Flexographic fluorescent ink;
• Coating;
• Adhesive; and
• Fountain solution.
The permittee must implement procedures to minimize spills of any VOC-containing material during handling and transfer to and from containers, enclosed systems, waste receptacles and other equipment.
The proposed permit contains requirements for new or modified emergency engines, in the event such engines are present at the new or modified graphic arts and printing facility. Each emergency engine must be equipped with a non-resettable hour meter and, if using fuel oil, then it must use diesel or biodiesel containing no more than 15 ppm (0.0015 percent) sulfur by weight. Newer emergency engines—model year 2006 or later for compression ignition engines and 2009 or later for spark ignition engines—must meet certain certification or emission requirements that are contained in the EPA emissions standards at 40 CFR part 89, 40 CFR part 90 and 40 CFR part 1048 or Table 1 to 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, as applicable. Other, older emergency engines at the new or modified facility are required to meet certain routine maintenance requirements, and must follow the manufacturer's emission-related operation and maintenance instructions or the permittee must develop and implement a maintenance plan, which must provide, to the extent practicable, for the maintenance and operation of the engine in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions.
The proposed permit includes monitoring that is sufficient to ensure compliance with the emission limitations that apply to the source. Compliance would include requiring monitoring the usage of VOC-containing materials on a weekly basis and conducting performance testing for emergency engines that are not required to be certified by the manufacturer as meeting those standards and are not in fact so certified. (This requirement is needed since the EPA certification program for certain engines is voluntary.) The proposed permit includes recordkeeping and reporting sufficient to ensure compliance with the monitoring requirements.
We request comment on all aspects of the proposed general permit for graphic arts and printing operations. We specifically request comment in the following two areas:
In addition to proposing limits on the VOC content of specified materials, the EPA is also proposing to include annual allowable VOC emission limitations for the graphic arts and printing operations source category. The proposed general permit includes an upper emission limitation of 25 tpy of VOC from an individual printing press (printing line). The proposed permit also provides overall total tpy emissions limitations for all printing lines at the facility, which become more stringent as the classification of the relevant ozone nonattainment area increases.
We opted to not propose surrogate throughput limits for graphic arts and printing operations, as we have for one other source category, because of the diversity of printing lines and materials that a facility may employ. It would be very difficult to set a material usage throughput limit that would have broad applicability. In addition, providing actual emissions limitations directly in the permit ensures the protection of air quality, while at the same time providing the source with flexibility regarding the types of printing lines and materials they use. We request comment both on the appropriateness of establishing annual VOC emissions limitations in the permit (versus throughput limits) and on whether the proposed limitations are set at the correct levels.
The proposed permits contain additional requirements for sources that locate in ozone nonattainment areas. First, the annual tpy emissions limitations for VOC decline as the classification of ozone nonattainment increases from marginal to extreme. The numbers are set at levels intended to ensure that the sources are not major for HAPs or for NSR purposes. Second, the proposed permit requires lower VOC content levels for materials used at graphic arts and printing operations located in severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas. Both of these features are meant to ensure that there is extra air quality protection in ozone nonattainment areas with higher classifications. We request comment on whether these additional limitations are needed and, if so, whether they are set at the correct levels.
A sawmill facility is an operation that processes raw timber into dimensional lumber for shipping and eventual sale. A modern sawmill's basic operation is much like those of hundreds of years ago; a log enters at one end and dimensional lumber exits at the other end. Sawmill activities include sawing, planing, sanding, chipping and drying wood. Sawmill facilities are common in areas with ample supplies of timber, including the southeast and northwest.
A sawmill's basic operation involves several steps to turn logs into dimensional lumber:
• Logs are brought in by logging truck, rail or a log drive to the sawmill;
• Logs are scaled either on the way to the mill or upon arrival at the mill;
• Debarking removes bark from the logs;
• Decking is the process for sorting the logs by species, size and end use (lumber, plywood, chips);
• The head saw, head rig or primary saw, breaks the log into cants (unfinished logs to be further processed) and flitches (unfinished planks) with a smooth edge;
• Depending upon the species and quality of the log, the cants will be further broken down by either a resaw or a gang edger into multiple flitches and/or boards;
• Edging trims all irregular edges off of the flitch, leaving four-sided lumber;
• Trimming squares the ends at typical lumber lengths;
• Drying removes naturally occurring moisture from the lumber (this can be done with kilns or the lumber can be air-dried);
• Planing smoothes the surface of the lumber leaving a uniform width and thickness; and
• Shipping transports the finished lumber to market.
Sawmills typically derive their power from the electric grid. Dryers may be either direct-fired or indirect-heated. Boilers are typically used to provide the heat for dryers. In direct-fired dryers, hot combustion gases from an onsite boiler are blended with recirculated exhaust from the dryer to lower the gas temperature to a level that will not scorch the lumber. In indirect-heated dryers, air is warmed over steam coils and then circulated over the lumber. Dryers typically have one to three heated zones followed by a cooling zone or section. Each heated zone has a hot air source, fans to move the warm air, and an exhaust vent or stack. The cooling section circulates ambient air over the wood to reduce the temperature just before it exits the dryer. The lumber must be cooled before proceeding to the next step in the process.
Criteria pollutant emissions of concern are primarily PM from sawing and planing, but also include PM from re-entrained road dust or sawdust particles; VOCs from drying; and NO
This proposed general permit would apply to the construction of new true minor source sawmills or the modification of existing true minor source sawmills, located in Indian country. The proposed permit requires that the permittee maintain and operate each affected emission unit and any associated air pollution control equipment, considering the manufacturer's recommended operating procedures, so as to minimize emissions of NSR regulated pollutants. The reviewing authority will determine whether the permittee is using acceptable operating and maintenance procedures based on monitoring results, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the permitted source. (Failure to meet these requirements would constitute a violation of the permit.)
In creating the proposed sawmill general permit, the EPA considered VOC emissions from kiln drying, surface coating operations, boilers, and emergency engines. We are requesting comment on whether there are other sources of VOC emissions at sawmills that should be included in our analysis.
The proposed permit is designed to be as comprehensive as possible and, thus, contains emission limitations requirements for the following affected emission units or activities:
• Planar mill operations (baghouse/fabric filter);
• Sawmill operations (baghouse/fabric filter or cyclone);
• Open burning (restrictions on);
• Boilers;
• Emergency engine use;
• Fugitive dust control; and
• Setbacks.
The proposed permit prohibits open burning and restricts the burning and combustion of wood or lumber products to wood-fired boilers. Each identified emissions unit must not result in the discharge of any gases that exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater averaged over any six-consecutive-minute period. Any liquid fuels used at the facility shall contain no more than 0.0015 percent sulfur by weight. The production of finished lumber is limited to 25 million board feet per year based on a 12-month rolling total. The 12-month rolling total is determined by the sum of the current monthly production and the total of the previous 11 months' production. The purpose of the board feet restriction is to further limit PM emissions from sawmill operations. The limit is in addition to the requirement that sawmills covered by the proposed general permit install cyclones and/or baghouses/fabric filters. The requirement is consistent with the general permits for sawmills in the states of Texas and Oregon.
In addition to requiring the installation and operation of air pollution controls as described below, the proposed permit limits tpy VOC emissions from all lumber drying kilns and surface coating operations regardless of where the sawmill is planning to locate or modify. The limitations for facilities planning to locate or modify in ozone nonattainment areas are progressively more restrictive as the classification of the ozone nonattainment area increases from marginal to extreme. Planar mill operations must be conducted within enclosed structures and a baghouse or fabric filter must be used to control emissions to the atmosphere. Sawmill operations conducted outdoors (i.e., operations other than planar mill operations) must, at a minimum, be covered and all material handling operations must be controlled using a cyclone or baghouse/fabric filter during all times that the affected emission units operate. Emissions to the atmosphere from sawmill operations conducted indoors must be controlled using a baghouse or fabric filter. The permittee must develop and implement a fugitive dust control plan. All VOC-containing material (e.g., coatings, thinners, and clean-up solvents) must be stored in closed containers. All waste materials containing VOC (e.g., soiled rags) must be stored in sealed containers until properly disposed.
The proposed permit also contains requirements for emergency engines, in the event such engines are present at the new or proposed sawmill facility. Each emergency engine must be equipped with a non-resettable hour meter and, if using fuel oil, then it must use diesel or biodiesel containing no more than 15 ppm (0.0015 percent) sulfur by weight. Newer emergency engines—model year 2006 or later for compression ignition engines and 2009 or later for spark ignition engines—must meet certain certification or emission requirements that are contained in the EPA's emissions standards at 40 CFR part 89, 40 CFR part 90 and 40 CFR part 1048 or Table 1 to 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, as applicable. Other, older emergency engines are required to meet certain routine maintenance requirements, and must follow the manufacturer's emission-related operation and maintenance instructions or the owner/operator must develop and implement their own maintenance plan which must provide to the extent practicable for the maintenance and operation of the engine in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions.
The proposed general permit includes monitoring that is sufficient to ensure compliance with the emission limitations that apply to the source, including ensuring that the baghouses/fabric filters and cyclones are operating properly, conducting weekly opacity observations and fugitive emissions surveys and meeting certain other requirements. The permit also requires performance testing for emergency engines that must meet certain emissions standards, but are neither required to be certified by the manufacturer as meeting those standards, nor are in fact so certified. This requirement is needed since the EPA certification program for certain engines is voluntary. The proposed general permit includes recordkeeping and reporting requirements sufficient to ensure compliance with the monitoring requirements.
We request comment on all aspects of the general permit for sawmill facilities. We specifically request comment in the following two areas:
The EPA is proposing to include annual allowable emission limitations for the sawmills source category. The proposed general permit includes both a limitation of 25 million board feet on a 12-month rolling total and total tpy VOC emissions limitations for the facility regardless of its location. The tpy limitations become more stringent in ozone nonattainment areas as the classification increases from marginal to extreme.
Aside from the maximum 25 million board-feet limit, we opted to not propose surrogate throughput limits for VOC emissions for sawmills, as we did for one other source category, because of the diversity of wood species (and associated emissions) that a sawmill facility may use. It would be very difficult to set a board foot throughput limit that could have broad applicability. Instead, by putting emissions limitations directly in the permit, it provides the source with flexibility on what wood species it uses, while ensuring that air quality is protected. We request comment on the appropriateness of establishing emissions limitations in the permit (versus a limit on throughput) and whether the specified limitations are established at the correct levels.
The proposed general permit requires sawmill facilities to locate at least 150 feet from the nearest property boundary and 1,000 feet from the nearest residence. This is consistent with the setback requirement in the state of Texas'
For purposes of this proposal, a permit by rule is a standard set of requirements (i.e., emissions limitations, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements) that can apply to multiple sources with similar emissions and other characteristics. This is similar to a general permit; however, unlike a general permit, we codify the permit by rule requirements into regulation using a formal rulemaking process. (While a proposed general permit is subject to notice and comment in accordance with 40 CFR 49.156 and 40 CFR 49.157, neither the final general permit itself, nor the requirements therein, are added to the Code of Federal Regulations.)
For purposes of this proposal, the permit by rule mechanism is a permit streamlining approach that reduces the time permitting authorities must devote to reviewing permit applications and issuing permits for source categories or emissions generating activities that pose a lower environmental concern. We believe that permits by rule offer another cost-effective means of issuing permits, and provide a quicker and simpler alternative mechanism for permitting true minor sources than the site-specific permit or standard general permit process.
State and local reviewing authorities use the permit by rule mechanism to authorize construction of less complex sources, and sources that emit at specified levels below the major stationary source thresholds. The EPA has approved several state or local permits by rule programs into State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
As discussed in a prior proposed rule (79 FR 2546, January 14, 2014), once the EPA identifies a source category or emissions generating activity for which the permit by rule mechanism would offer permit streamlining benefits, while at the same time protecting air quality, we will codify a nationally applicable permit by rule for those similar sources into a new section of the Indian Country Minor NSR FIP following notice and comment rulemaking procedures. If the permit by rule will apply only at a regional level, then the EPA regional reviewing authority will conduct the rulemaking process, and appropriately limit the applicability of the permit by rule to a specified geographic area.
As proposed, permits by rule would be used to address source categories of true minor sources, where the reviewing authority does not need to conduct an in-depth review to evaluate whether an individual source qualifies for the permit (i.e., meets the applicability requirements) and can meet the requirements in the permit. A source category would be covered by a permit by rule if the reviewing authority needs to do nothing more than receive confirmation from an individual source that it meets all appropriate criteria to be eligible for coverage under the permit by rule and that it intends to comply with the operational, monitoring and recordkeeping requirements specified in this rule. (By contrast, under a general permit the source would need to submit a request for coverage to the reviewing authority and receive an approval from that authority before starting source construction.)
In our January 14, 2014 proposed rule, we proposed to amend the Indian Country Minor NSR rule general permit provisions at 40 CFR 49.156 to set forth the unique elements of the permits by rule process.
Similar to general permits, prior to seeking coverage under a permit by rule, a source must satisfactorily address the permit requirements related to the ESA and the NHPA. Attached to the request for coverage,
As an alternative to a general permit, we are proposing to establish a permit by rule, for one source category: Graphic arts and printing operations. We are proposing this source category for a permit by rule based on our determination that this source category emits primarily one pollutant (i.e., VOCs), that there is little variation in the equipment used, and that the compliance requirements are straightforward and readily verifiable. By contrast, the other five source categories in today's proposal, to varying degrees, involve more complex operations, more than one pollutant and more complex compliance requirements. The source categories are:
• Concrete batch plants;
• Boilers;
• Stationary compression ignition engines;
• Stationary spark ignition engines; and
• Sawmills.
We are not providing specific regulatory language for the proposed permit by rule but rather are proposing to codify the requirements of the proposed general permit for this source category described in Section VI.D. If, after considering relevant comments received in response to today's proposed action, we decide to finalize a permit by rule for the source category, we will codify the requirements as contained in the proposed general permit for the source category, including any changes that we deem appropriate based on our review of public comments on the proposed general permit and other relevant information. In other words, whether we use the permit by rule or the standard general permit mechanism, we propose to apply identical requirements to regulate construction and modification activities of affected emission units in the graphic arts and printing operations source category. We believe that the proposed general permit provides the public with a sufficient understanding of the contents of any final rule, and, therefore, satisfies our obligations under section 301(a) of the CAA and the Administrative Procedures Act.
The EPA welcomes comments on all aspects of the proposed general permit and proposed permit by rule for the graphic arts and printing operations source category discussed in this notice. In particular, we request comments on whether the permit by rule terms and conditions for graphic arts and printing operations should be identical to the general permit terms and conditions, or whether they should differ.
We are providing several tools and documents to assist sources with obtaining coverage under the general permits and permit by rule for the six source categories that are the subject of today's proposal. The tools are drafted based on our preferred approach of general permits. If we decide to issue a permit by rule for the graphic arts and printing operations source category as we are proposing in the alternative today, then we will need to adjust the wording in the documents to reflect that tools being made available are for a permit by rule and not a general permit. The background document for graphic arts and printing operations supports both our general permit proposal and permit by rule proposal, in the alternative; therefore, the document cites both general permits and permits by rule as the permit types it supports.
The tools consist of the following six types of documents:
The general permit application for graphic arts and printing operations is more streamlined because sources in the category represent more straightforward operations, largely involve one air pollutant (i.e., VOCs) and, therefore, necessitate less intensive review for approval. The general permit application form for the category asks for basic solvent usage information and whether the source has complied or will comply with relevant requirements. By contrast, the general permit applications for concrete batch plants, engines, boilers and sawmills request more detailed technical information about the proposed facility in question because these facilities are more complex and can involve multiple operations and pollutants.
For graphic arts and printing operations, this form also serves as an application for sources seeking coverage under a permit by rule should the EPA decide to issue one for this category. In such circumstances, the source would need to complete the shortened application and keep a record on file. Successfully completing the application will enable the source to determine if it can certify to the reviewing authority that it meets the permit's eligibility terms and conditions, which the source would need to do via a letter in order to begin its construction or modification.
• Source category definition and characterization;
• State minor source permit programs for that category used for comparison;
• Requirements for general permits and permits by rule for that category; and
• Threshold (emission limitations) development and rationale for that category.
All of these documents are available online at
In our January 14, 2014 proposed rule, the EPA requested comments on whether, for certain source categories, the EPA should structure the permits so that eligible true minor sources can receive coverage under permits by rule and synthetic minor sources receive coverage under general permits. In addition, just as we proposed that general permits are more appropriate for more complex source categories, we requested comment on whether general permits (and not permits by rule) are more appropriate for major sources that seek to become “synthetic” minor sources. And, as we proposed that permits by rule are more appropriate for less complex source categories, we requested comments on whether permits by rule (and not general permits) are more appropriate for true minor sources. In this action, we request comment only on whether this concept should be applied to the graphic arts and printing operations source category. In the docket, a background document is provided for this source category, which includes a summary of National Emissions Inventory data for the category.
We are proposing one change to one provision in the existing Indian country minor NSR rule addressing the time period within which the reviewing authority must make a determination on whether a request for coverage under a general permit is complete and to complete its review of the request for coverage. We are proposing this change only for the general permit for the graphic arts and printing operations source category. The Indian County Minor NSR rule currently requires the reviewing authority to determine whether a request for coverage under a general permit is complete within 45 days of receiving the request (40 CFR 49.156(e)(4)) and to take final action on the request within 90 days of receiving a complete request (40 CFR 49.156(e)(3)). For the proposed general permit for the graphic arts and printing operations source category, we are proposing to shorten the time for determining whether a request for coverage is complete to 15 days (by that date the reviewing authority must either determine that the request for coverage is complete or request any additional information) and to shorten the time within which the reviewing authority must take final action on the request to 45 days. We explained our general rationale for taking this approach for some, but not all, general permits in our January 14, 2014, proposed rule.
We are proposing the shortened time frames for the graphic arts and printing operations source category only. We also propose to provide the reviewing authority the option of automatically denying a source's request for coverage if the source fails to submit any additional requested information within 15 days of receiving the request from the reviewing authority to remain consistent with our intent to provide a streamlined notification and review process. If a reviewing authority denies a request for coverage because a source fails to submit requested information by the deadline, the source may re-apply at a later date to re-initiate the request for coverage.
We believe that a shortened application review process for the graphic arts and printing operations general permit is justified because the streamlined nature of the general permit for the graphic arts and printing operations source category is
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not subject to review under EOs 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's 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 proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The EPA analyzed the impact of streamlined permitting on small entities in the Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country (76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011). Today's action will not impose any requirements on small entities, as it merely implements a particular aspect of the Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country.
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. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal government or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule has no requirements applicable to small governments and, as such, does not impose obligations upon them.
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 EO 13132. This action merely proposes to provide sources in Indian country with streamlined permitting opportunities that are generally available in states outside of Indian country. It does not impose any new obligations or enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal government or the private sector. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of EO 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from state and local officials.
Pursuant to the EO 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), the 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 the EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
The EPA has concluded that this action will not impose duties or responsibilities on tribes, although it will have tribal implications. The EPA has conducted outreach via on-going monthly meetings with tribal environmental professionals in the development of this proposed action. This proposal reflects priorities for developing permits, comments on the general permits and suggestions for developing permits by rules developed as a result of that outreach. The EPA will offer consultation to elected tribal officials immediately after proposal to provide an opportunity for meaningful and timely input into the development of this regulation.
The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
The 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 does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This action is not subject to EO 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because
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 the 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. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. In the proposed permits the EPA proposes the use of EPA Methods 5, 7, 9, 10, 18, 22 and 25A of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
E.O. 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 its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations in the United States.
The 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 merely implements certain aspects of the Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country. As such, this proposed action will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minorities and low-income populations in the United States.
Our primary goal in developing the general permits and permits by rule is to ensure that air resources in Indian country will be protected in the manner intended by the CAA. In particular, this rule will help minimize air quality impacts from new or modified true minor sources in Indian country. In addition, we seek to establish a flexible preconstruction permitting program for minor sources in Indian country that is comparable to similar programs in neighboring states to create a more level regulatory playing field for owners and operators within and outside of Indian country. This rule will reduce an existing disparity by filling the regulatory gap.
Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control, Indians, Indians-law, Indians-tribal government, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.