Pennsylvania AQTAC Discusses Oil and Gas Related Topics at June 14, 2012 Meeting

The Pennsylvania Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC) met on Thursday June 14, 2012 at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Rachel Carson building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.  Among many important agenda items, two key topics that were discussed related directly to Pennsylvania’s growing oil and gas industry; a review of public comments regarding the proposed revisions to GP-5 for Natural Gas Production and Processing Facilities and a review of public comments regarding the Interim Final Guidance for Performing Stationary Source Determinations for Oil and Gas Industries.  The presentations did not get into the “weeds,” but provided a general flavor of the comments submitted by the general public, industry, environmental interest groups, and U.S. EPA.  A summary of the comments related to GP-5 is presented below.  The comments related to the Interim Final Guidance for Performing Stationary Source Determinations for Oil and Gas Industries will be provided in a later blog.   

For the proposed GP-5 revisions, PADEP received comments from 296 commentators, with multiple duplicate submittals. A copy of the PADEP presentation can be viewed here. The comments provided by the general public expressed concerns associated with the lack of public participation for individual GPs issued to sources, the lack of source specific best available technology requirements for each individual GP-5 permit issued, and suggestion that regional public hearings be conducted to present the impacts of the revised GP-5.  As anticipated, U.S. EPA provided numerous comments that weighed in on the proposed revisions and identified significant concerns with federal enforceability of emission unit specific voluntary GP-5 permit limits, suggested that a provision be included to allow PADEP to request an air quality impact analysis (e.g. modeling study) to evaluate a source’s impact on a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), suggested that GP-5 address emissions of PM₁₀, PM_2.5, VOC, and GHG from all GP-5 sources, and suggested that applicants provide more detail for compliance demonstration methods.  Affected industries provided substantial comments suggesting GP-5 exemptions (e.g., well heads, vehicle idling, well completions, and fugitive dust), the incorporation of federal NSPs and NESHAP requirements by reference (versus specific inclusion of such requirements), revisions to emission limits for reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE), and suggesting that PADEP scale back the broad definition of “Natural Gas Production and Processing Facilities” of GP-5 to be more consistent with the intent of a General Permit.  Several oil and gas equipment vendors expressed concern with the specified catalyst monitoring requirements as being overly burdensome, burdensome site specific record storage requirements, suggested removal of the SO₂, particulate, and formaldehyde limits for engines, and expressed concern with the proposed GP-5 RICE emission limits as being unattainable. Finally, several environmental groups provide comments that requested clarification of GP-5’s non-applicability to landfill gas compression, suggested inclusion of all applicable regulatory requirements for the source, and suggested replacing the stated 85% VOC control standard with a 98 to 99% VOC control requirement.  PADEP indicated that final amendments will be available “this fall” with a response to comment document. PADEP also hinted that the GP-5 proposal may be revised, along with a revised permit exemption list, and both of these could go through public notice again.

How the SO2 NAAQS Came Crashing Down On Us

The sulfur dioxide (SO2) landscape looked very different in 2008 than it does today.  At that time, the annual, 24-hour, and 3-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2 had been in place for a long time.  Except for one (1) county in the entire United States, there were no areas that were classified as nonattainment with any of the SO2 NAAQS levels.  The need to demonstrate direct compliance with the NAAQS levels for SO2 was only triggered by projects that were major modifications or new sources that were subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements.  As a result, air dispersion modeling for SO2 was reserved for those few projects that were significant for SO2 emissions, and the SO2 NAAQS levels were comfortably high such that they impacted permitting decisions for only a small fraction of those PSD significant projects.  As a result, that special group of dispersion modeling scientists, along with their unique attributes and occasional idiosyncrasies, weren’t in a position of high visibility in the air permitting arena.  The primary issue during a PSD permitting evaluation was the requirement to install a control technology or establish an emission limit to be consistent with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements.  And so it had been for a long time. However, U.S. EPA had been performing their SO2 NAAQS review in the background, and things changed abruptly in July 2010 when U.S. EPA finalized a rulemaking establishing the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and those quirky dispersion modelers suddenly got much more recognition.

The final SO2 NAAQS rule published in July 2010 was notable not for the language in the rule itself, but the implementation approach outlined in the preamble to the rule.  As with the proposed 1-hour NAAQS rule, the final NAAQS as established was extremely stringent to nobody’s surprise.  The way that U.S. EPA proposed to implement the standard was quite surprising, however.  In the proposed rule, U.S. EPA indicated a plan to establish an enhanced network of ambient SO2 monitors to establish which areas were or were not attaining the new 1-hour NAAQS.  The use of ambient monitoring data to establish NAAQS attainment is as old as the Clean Air Act (CAA) itself.  However, U.S. EPA’s intended implementation approach laid out in the preamble to the final rule looked very different.  The final rule outlined a “hybrid” approach to evaluating NAAQS attainment that would utilize existing SO2 monitoring data in combination with ambient concentrations predicted by air dispersion modeling (specifically with the AERMOD air dispersion model).  Air dispersion modeling was given significant weight in the preamble, to the point that an attainment designation in an area could only be established with both ambient monitoring and air dispersion modeling data.

U.S. EPA’s suggested approach would have required that dispersion modeling be performed and results submitted by states to U.S. EPA as part of a “Maintenance SIP” submittal in June 2013.  The approach as outlined and the use of dispersion modeling represented a major departure from the standard NAAQS implementation process and a significant new burden on a wide range of industries.  The AERMOD dispersion model is inherently conservative in both its inputs and underlying assumptions, making it very difficult to demonstrate modeled compliance with the 1-hour NAAQS, particularly for multiple facilities located close together that exhibit overlapping impacts.  Since the Maintenance SIP submittals would be required to include emission rates that “work” with modeling for the 1-hour NAAQS, they would have required more stringent new instantaneous emission limits for the vast majority of SO2 emitting industrial facilities.  In many cases, the new limits would have prompted the installation of add-on control devices or changes to the operational strategies of facilities (e.g., types of fuels fired, etc.) and resulting in an unanticipated round of New Source Review (NSR) permitting for affected facilities.  To justify this approach, U.S. EPA opted to consider the public comments on the proposed NAAQS rule that focused on the timing requirements and logistical difficulties around establishing an enhanced ambient monitoring network.

While it is clear that ambient monitors are the only appropriate way to establish NAAQS compliance, U.S. EPA’s surprise dispersion modeling-based implementation approach had to be taken at face value by industry, prompting both regulatory agencies and industry to take action. Legal challenges to the approach were filed.  States began evaluating their resources and capabilities to conduct such complicated and widespread dispersion modeling (many states began requesting specific modeling information from facilities).  Many facilities began to conduct preliminary exploratory dispersion modeling to evaluate modeled concentrations.  The more the states reviewed their approaches to modeling, and the more exploratory dispersion modeling that was conducted, the more clear it became that conducting dispersion modeling across a wide range of sources and determining which sources would be required to make emission reductions and to what extent would be a virtually impossible exercise in most areas of the country.  U.S. EPA attempted to put some definition around the dispersion modeling process in September 2011.  They were flooded with comments from the public and from states urging them to reconsider the dispersion modeling implementation approach.  Some of the comments included:  (1) dispersion modeling to assess NAAQS attainment is inconsistent with the provisions of the Clean Air Act; (2) the conservative nature of the dispersion model makes it an inappropriate tool to evaluate NAAQS compliance; and (3) the inputs as specified by U.S. EPA, including the modeling of potential-to-emit rather than actual emissions, were exacerbating the primary issues with the dispersion modeling approach.

In response to the public comments, U.S. EPA put a temporary hold on the dispersion modeling process for NAAQS implementation purposes, and scheduled three public stakeholder meetings to solicit input on how best to continue with the 1-hour NAAQS implementation process.  The meetings included separate venues for environmental groups, state regulatory agency representatives, and industry and consultant representatives.  ALL4 attended the industry stakeholder group meeting and noted the following observations:

• Environmental groups continue to put pressure on U.S. EPA that every area of the country needs to be evaluated against the 1-hour NAAQS.  Environmental groups are attempting to apply pressure by conducting their own dispersion modeling for specific facilities using publicly available information, and reporting the unfavorable (and conservative, potentially inaccurate) results.  If the implementation process were in the hands of environmental groups, all facilities would be performing SO2 dispersion modeling right now.
• U.S. EPA agrees on the need to at least qualitatively evaluate all areas of the country since, unlike NOX and ozone that are either oriented around mobile sources or are regional in nature, SO2 can be a more source-oriented pollutant.  Whether the differences between ozone and SO2 means that SO2 should be evaluated in every corner of the country is debatable.
• Under the assumption that all areas need to be evaluated, U.S. EPA is open to a threshold approach for narrowing the number of areas that would need to be specifically considered.  Establishing an annual emissions threshold on an individual facility basis was discussed (i.e., if a facility emits greater than 1,000 tons per year it would be required to evaluate the 1-hour NAAQS).  Establishing population-weighted emission thresholds was also discussed.  This approach would evaluate areas that meet criteria for a factor that accounts for total emissions and total population.
• The conversation turned from selecting which areas to evaluate to the methodology that would be used to assess NAAQS compliance in those areas.  The overwhelming comment:  ambient monitors are the only appropriate way to assess NAAQS compliance.  Dispersion models are not the correct tool for the evaluation for various reasons.
• In a marked shift from the final 1-hour SO2 NAAQS rule, U.S. EPA expressed openness to an implementation process that is based entirely on data from ambient monitors.  While promising, the conversation then turned to the logistics around establishing an expanded monitoring network.  Who will pay for the monitors and who will be responsible for running them?
• Federal and State funding for new ambient monitors is scarce, so U.S. EPA directly asked those industry groups and companies in attendance about their potential willingness to assist in funding an increased monitoring network.  The responses were mixed, ranging from a willingness to further explore funding to requests that U.S. EPA determine their national health priorities and fund them directly.

While no specific decisions were made on the implementation process, the meeting was helpful to understand U.S. EPA’s current thinking on the next steps.  U.S. EPA is now tasked with establishing new rulemaking or guidance to specify the next steps in the NAAQS implementation process.  The stakeholder group attendees strongly urged that U.S. EPA use the formal rulemaking process to allow for public comments on the next steps of the implementation process.  Our hope is that the final rulemaking will include the following components based on what we believe is an appropriate approach along with the industry stakeholder feedback to U.S. EPA:

• NAAQS designations will be based exclusively on ambient monitoring data.
• New ambient monitors will be placed in areas using both emissions information and population data.  Only those areas with a combination of high SO2 emissions and relatively high population will be evaluated.  This approach is the most reasonable because it identifies those areas where the general public could be exposed to elevated SO2 concentrations.
• The specific location of ambient monitors within those areas being evaluated will account for population weighting such that the monitors will be located in population centers.  Dispersion modeling will not be utilized for siting ambient monitors since it would result in facility fenceline monitoring locations that do not realistically represent areas of peak SO2 concentrations to which the general public would be exposed.

After collection of the new ambient monitoring data, those areas in which elevated concentrations are identified will not be reclassified as nonattainment areas; rather Maintenance Plans will be established to allow progress towards attainment with the 1-hour NAAQS (side note that areas in which ambient monitors are currently located will receive their designations from U.S. EPA in the near future).

While there is a lot of information to consider and a lot of uncertainty around how the final implementation process will look, our advice to facilities remains the same.  Despite the temporary hold on what would have been a burdensome dispersion modeling process, the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS remains a liability across industry (remember that modeling requirements could be triggered by factors beyond your control such as another facility performing major permitting nearby).  Consider the following:

• Understand the ambient concentration predicted for your facility by dispersion modeling.  This knowledge is critical in the event that dispersion modeling is re-inserted into the implementation process or if modeling is triggered by another mechanism such as a nearby facility conducting PSD permitting.
• Remain in tune with U.S. EPA’s ongoing preparation of a final rulemaking for the remainder of the 1-hour implementation process.  Given the amount of information and comments that need to be considered, it would be surprising if U.S. EPA finalized a proposed rule in less than a year.
• Consider submitting comments on your thoughts around the implementation process.  U.S. EPA prepared a White Paper outlining the discussion points for the stakeholder meeting.  Written comments and thoughts to U.S. EPA are due by June 29, 2012.
• Consider your facility’s and company’s role in the implementation process.  Initiating discussions with state agencies on new ambient monitors and the potential for funding those monitors could put you in a position to influence the process of locating ambient monitors in the future.

As the SO2 NAAQS implementation process continues to develop, we will be there to follow the twists and turns.  Stay tuned for additional updates.

Technical Writing 101: ALL4’s Ongoing Commitment to Education on the Job

On June 18, 2012, a select group of ALL4 staff members had the pleasure of attending a Technical Writing Seminary held at ALL4’s Kimberton, PA office.  Conducted by the efficient and extremely well organized Sandra Nutting of The Writing Center in West Chester, Pennsylvania, the course focused on the proper approach to writing clearly and concisely in a professional field littered with scientific jargon and acronyms, such as environmental consulting.  Sandra’s students were treated to a fast-paced, lecture style tutorial, kept interesting with frequent exercises and lively banter. 

Spanning an action packed six hours, the seminar covered topics ranging from how to correctly write an office memo to how to outline a technical report.  Specifically, participants were introduced to:

• the application of strategies for clear, direct wording; the selection of an appropriate level of technical detail;
• the application of controlled, precise instructions and specifications; the creation of flexible outlines and reusable templates;
• the logical organization of documents;
• the proper presentation of results and recommendations; and
• the emphasis of important information and document readability.

Seminar participants were kept on their toes and engaged with habitual and often sporadic group exercises aimed toward enforcing key points and helpful tips.

Frequently using examples from her work with high level professional organizations such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Sandra effectively presented an easy to follow methodology for sound, succinct writing that was not only interesting but immediately rewarding.  For instance, by incorporating excerpts from current ALL4 projects, Sandra was able to teach each ALL4 staff member in a personal and relevant manner that immediately impacted their current project work.  An extremely beneficial experience for every participant, Sandra Nutting’s Technical Writing Seminar has provided ALL4’s staff with several powerful tools for producing high quality, readable, and accurate documents in a field full of complex ideas and circuitous language and will surely help to further distinguish ALL4 as a premier environmental consulting firm.

When Will We See the Final Boiler MACT and CISWI Rules from U.S. EPA?

Rumor has it that we could see the final 4 Rules (i.e., the Major and Area Source Boiler MACT, CISWI*, and NHSM* rules) by the end of June.  U.S. EPA sent final versions of the rules to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in mid-May for review, which can normally take 90 days.  But as Chuck mentioned in his blog post earlier this month, the review for these rules could take even longer given their high visibility – or maybe that will result in an expedited review?  So – when do you think we’ll see the final rules?  Take our poll below and we’ll publish the results in an upcoming blog post (or vote to see them immediately).

* Not familiar with those acronyms?  No problem:

CISWI = Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
NHSM = Non-hazardous Secondary Materials

A Few Helpful Tips for Expert Testimony or Public Hearings

An artifact of gaining experience, which is a euphemism for getting older, is that you may find yourself being called upon to act as an expert in public hearings.  Whether these public hearings are informational or judicial, there can be much at stake and it is important that you perform well at these hearings.  Your company’s reputation, your reputation, and in some instances your client’s reputation could be adversely impacted by a poor performance in front of a judgmental general public or hearing board.  Provided below are some observations regarding how to present a strong case when you find yourself involved with expert testimony or public hearings.

Before you even set foot near a public meeting site here are some important steps that you should implement well in advance of your meeting:

1. Enroll and educate all key stakeholders.  This includes elected officials, other government officials, regulators, local businesses, and, most importantly, the public.  Do not underestimate the impact of public perception and do not rely on sound technical and business merits of a project when the public and politics are involved.
2. Recognize and embrace the power of social media.  Social media can both positively and negatively affect the perception of a business and its project.  By embracing social media, and developing a forum where the pros and cons can be supported with factual arguments, you are afforded the opportunity to develop credibility and trust.
3. Data is everywhere and can be used to tell many different stories.  The internet has made data available to everyone.  Studies and/or articles on the internet can be found and referenced to support any “stand” you wish to take.  For example, we were able to find articles that support the concept that drinking water could be bad for your health!  [if you don’t believe us, Google it yourself…]  What this means for new projects is that there may be inappropriate, old, and/or conflicting data available that others may rely upon to “evaluate” your project.  Cite your vendor data, references, and assumptions clearly and don’t be surprised if data from a 1982 Study from Turkey is presented to contradict your current day data/vendor guarantees.

Public hearings can range from the unattended meeting to meetings that are over-flowing with members of a contentious public.  In either situation, simplify your message and keep the technical jargon to the minimum.  Use an analogy to relate technical issues to circumstances to which the general public can relate.  Acknowledge the value of the statement that each commenter/questioner makes.  “Thanks for your comment”, “I appreciate your observations”, and “That’s a good question/important question” are examples of qualifying introductions that you can provide as part of your response.

Accept that sometimes you will be a sacrificial body at contentious public hearings.  At these hearings there will be minimal potential to change someone’s opinion about the issue; however, you will certainly want to avoid exacerbating the situation.  In contentious situations, it is best to listen much more than talk, and when you do talk, keep the message consistent from response to response.  If you are the client’s consultant at this type of meeting, be prepared to shoulder the brunt of the public response.

If you are delivering expert testimony, here a few reminders to consider.  First, make certain that your presence is active not passive; making eye contact, speaking loud enough and at a measured pace will help establish you in the front of judge or jury.  Second, when you are asked a question, wait to hear the entire question before answering.  It is important to refrain from the inclination to be eager with a response.  Third, keep your answers succinct and to the point of the question so that extraneous information is minimized – know the key facts/dates related to your testimony, misstating information, even if you immediately correct, has the effect of diminishing your expertise.  Also, if you are providing expert testimony about a particular aspect of a multi-aspect case, make certain that you have familiarized yourself with the unrelated aspects.  Although you may not be the expert in the unrelated aspects, you can quickly downgrade your perceived level of expertise by being unprepared and not knowing the basics of the components to the overall case.  Finally, one item to keep in perspective while you are defending your testimony, remember that the cross-examining questions are not a malicious attack on you as a person, they are designed to weaken your testimony.  If you appear annoyed or troubled by the cross-examination, you can weaken your testimony just by your reaction.

In summary, whether it is a hearing for the general public or a judicial setting, preparation is critical.  Review how you are going to present information: verbally only, handouts, or large print displays.  Carefully consider what words you are going to use – a word commonly used in engineering or industry applications may have a different meaning to the general public.  Practice your presentation/testimony several times.  When you know your material, it shows.

The RICE MACT Amendments Remind Me Of…Finding $20 in an Old Pair of Pants

What does finding $20 in an old pair of pants have to do with air quality?  Good question.  Nothing really, except that U.S. EPA’s recent revision of the RICE MACT (i.e., 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ), boosting the allowable time that emergency RICE can operate under a demand response program from 60 to 100 hours per year, reminds me somewhat of finding a crisp twenty in an old pair of slacks.  Area sources that own large emergency stationary RICE, but only operate those RICE infrequently for purposes of exercise and maintenance, can use those emergency RICE as a source of relatively passive revenue if they take part in a peak shaving or a demand response program like Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland’s (PJM’s) Interconnection.  Truth be told operators could have done this very thing prior to the recent revisions to the RICE MACT, but the “margins” are less restrictive now.  Previously, facilities operating emergency stationary RICE had to limit nonemergency operation to 50 hours per year and maintenance and testing operation to 50 hours per year for a combined total of 100 hours per year of nonemergency operation. Exceeding the nonemergency operating hour limits could have cost such emergency RICE their status as “emergency” RICE, making them subject to more stringent requirements under the RICE MACT.  Facilities must still operate their emergency stationary RICE for less than 100 hours of nonemergency operation per year to maintain their status as emergency RICE. However, now facilities have more flexibility to operate their RICE for nonemergency purposes.  Facilities may now perform their maintenance and testing in as short a time as possible and then use the hours remaining in their 100 hour nonemergency operating “bank” toward a demand response program.  Truly emergency operation is not affected by this and facilities can still operate their emergency RICE as much as needed for emergency purposes (barring any state specific limitations, of course).  Looking at their RICE’s historic maintenance and readiness testing operating hours, facilities may find with the recent RICE MACT revisions that there is potential for revenue where there was none before, like that twenty in my old pants.

New GIF Forms in Pennsylvania

On May 10, 2012 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) edited the General Information Form (GIF) – Authorization Application package located in the Department’s eLibrary.   The most recent version of the GIF package must be completed and returned with any program-specific application being submitted to the Department.

What changed?  Not much.  The only obvious changes I could find appear to be formatting.  I have not been able to find any information to explain why the changes were made.

The current version of the GIF package contains Form Summary ID 1300-PM-BIT0001, which is different than the previous version.  The new forms can be found here.  

To avoid potential PADEP rejection of applications, I urge everyone to use the current version of these forms for your projects in Pennsylvania.

Georgia EPD Update

While attending recent training, Jac Capp, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) Air Director, presented insightful information on several air quality issues and initiatives in Georgia.  Mr. Capp first provided a status update on the timeliness of permit applications and Title V renewals.  He cited that in 2006, GAEPD had 400 total pending applications of which 90 were older than one (1) year and 30 were older than 18 months.  As of April 2012, these same statistics reflect 218 total pending applications; of which nine (9) are older than one (1) year and six (6) are older than 18 months.  Mr. Capp then updated the ozone situation, mentioning that there are currently nine (9) ambient air monitors in the Atlanta area with five (5) of these monitors meeting the standard.  He then provided updates on several initiatives at GAEPD including:

• GAEPD staff is preparing new prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) application guidance that describes how to submit a complete application, emphasizes resolution of issues early in the process, and establishes a primary point of contact at GAEPD; 
• The staff at GAEPD is working on making state-wide pre-processed meteorological data and background ambient concentrations available, with a late 2012 availability goal;
• GAEPD is in the early stages of revamping the Title V application software, which will become a web-based system, with a 2013 target completion date; and
• Finally, Georgia has passed new legislation that allows an applicant to pay a special fee for an expedited permit review.

Boiler MACT Rules Sent to White House Office of Management & Budget

In the ongoing saga of the Boiler MACT Rules, U.S. EPA has sent revised versions of the rules to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) for pre-publication review.  On May 17, 2012, U.S. EPA sent the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Major Source Boilers and Area Source Boilers to OMB for review, and on May 18, 2012, sent the New Source Performance Standards for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI) and Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) Rule to OMB for review.  A typical review usually takes 90 days. However, due to the vast amount of attention the Boiler MACT Rules have received, the review could take longer.  On the other hand, U.S. EPA had intended to issue final revised regulations in the Federal Register sometime this spring, and rumor has it that the goal is to finalize them before the end of June.  OMB review could push back the final publication date.  Stay tuned to ALL4’s blog for the latest news on the Boiler MACT Rules.

Final Amendments to Petroleum Refinery New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Ja) Issued By U.S. EPA

On June 1, 2012, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signed a notice issuing final amendments for 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Ja, Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After May 14, 2007.  Specifically, these amendments lift the September 2008 stay of effectiveness of the process heater and flare requirements of the standard.  For process heaters, a concentration-based emission limit for nitrogen oxides (NO_X) and a heating value-based emission limit for NO_X have been established.  A site specific compliance option for process heaters that have difficulty meeting the emission standards has also been established.  For flares, work practice standards and monitoring requirements that encourage flare gas recovery are identified.  For infrequently used flares, less burdensome monitoring requirements are included.

Besides several new definitions in §60.101a, other highlights of the final amendments include new provisions in §60.100a describing flare connections that are NOT considered modifications, thereby clarifying flare applicability.  The definition of fuel gas combustion device has also been modified to clarify that flares and facilities in which gases are combusted to produce sulfur or sulfuric acid are not fuel gas combustion devices. 

 U.S. EPA has submitted the amendments for publication in the Federal Register.  The final rule will become effective 60 days after publication.