Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64427 

Subpart C—Alaska 

■ 2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding 

paragraphs (c)(39) and (c)(40) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.70 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(39) On April 9, 2010, the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) submitted a 

revision to the Alaska State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to update the 

SIP to include the 2008 ozone standard 

at an 8-hour averaging period, the 

associated federal method for measuring 

and monitoring ozone in ambient air, 

and a general definition of ozone. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) The 

following revised sections of Alaska 

Administrative Code Title 18: Chapter 

50, effective April 1, 2010: 

(1) Article 1, Ambient Air Quality 

Management: Rule 010 Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, the undesignated 

introductory text, and (4); Rule 035 

Documents, procedures, and methods 

adopted by reference, (b) the 

undesignated introductory text, and 

(b)(1), but only with respect to the 

incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 

part 50, Appendix P; 

(2) Article 2, Program Administration: 

Rule 215 Ambient Air Quality Analysis 

Methods, (a) introductory text, and 

(a)(2); 

(3) Article 9, General Provisions, Rule 

990 Definitions, (129). 

(40) On November 19, 2010, and July 

9, 2012, the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 

submitted revisions to the Alaska State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to update the 

SIP to include federal Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program 

changes to regulate NOX as a precursor 

to ozone, and provisions to satisfy CAA 

section 128 conflict of interest 

disclosure requirements. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) The 

following revised sections of Alaska 

Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 

50, effective December 9, 2010: 

(1) Article 1, Ambient Air Quality 

Management: Rule 040 Federal 

standards adopted by reference, (h) the 

undesignated introductory text, only 

with respect to 40 CFR Part 52 and 

(h)(4), only with respect to the 

incorporation by reference date for 

‘‘significant’’ at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i); 

(2) Article 9, General Provisions, Rule 

990 Definitions, (52)(A), ‘‘major 

stationary source,’’ (53)(A), ‘‘major 

modification,’’ and (92), ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant.’’ 

(ii) Additional material. (A) The 

following sections of Alaska 

Administrative Code Title 2 and Title 9, 

effective February 20, 2005: 

(1) Title 2, Administration: Chapter 

50, Alaska Public Offices Commission: 

Conflict of Interest, Campaign 

Disclosure, Legislative Financial 

Disclosure, and Regulations of 

Lobbying; Article 1, Public Official 

Financial Disclosure (2 AAC 50.010–2 

AAC 50.200); 

(2) Title 9, Law: Chapter 52, Executive 

Branch Code of Ethics (9 AAC 52.010– 

9 AAC 52.990). 

■ 3. Section 52.96 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 52.96 Significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

(a) The State of Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation Air Quality 

Control Regulations as in effect on 

December 3, 2005 (specifically 18 AAC 

50.010 except (7) and (8); 50.015; 

50.020; 50.030(6) and (7); 50.035(a)(4) 

and (5); 50.040(h) except (17), (18), and 

(19); 50.215 except (a)(3); 50.250; 50.306 

except (b)(2) and (b)(3); 50.345 except 

(b), (c)(3) and (l); and 50.990 except (21) 

and (77)) are approved as meeting the 

requirements of part C for preventing 

significant deterioration of air quality. 

The following regulations as in effect on 

April 1, 2010, are also approved as 

meeting the requirements of part C for 

preventing significant deterioration of 

air quality: 18 AAC 50.010 (introductory 

paragraph); 18 AAC 50.010(4); 18 AAC 

50.035(b) (introductory paragraph); 18 

AAC 50.035(b)(1), only with respect to 

the incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 

part 50, Appendix P; 18 AAC 50.215(a) 

(introductory paragraph and (a)(2); and 

18 AAC 50.990(129). The following 

regulations as in effect on December 9, 

2010, are also approved as meeting the 

requirements of part C for preventing 

significant deterioration of air quality: 

18 AAC 50.040(h) (introductory 

paragraph) with respect to 40 CFR 

52.21, and (h)(4), only with respect to 

the incorporation by reference date for 

‘‘significant’’ at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) 

and ‘‘subject to regulation’’ at 

52.21(b)(49) for the purpose of 

greenhouse gases only; and 18 AAC 

50.990 (52)(A), (53)(A), and (92). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 52.98 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.98 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements. 

On July 9, 2012, the Alaska 

Department of Environmental Quality 

submitted a certification to address the 

requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA approves the submittal as 

meeting the following 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

[FR Doc. 2012–25808 Filed 10–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0359; FRL–9732–5] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

action was proposed in the Federal 

Register on June 13, 2012 and concerns 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from crude oil production 

sumps and refinery wastewater 

separators. We are approving local rules 

that regulate these emission sources 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: These rules will be effective on 

November 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0359 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports), and some may not be 

available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, law.nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
64428 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Phone conversation with Steve Fields 

(California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

Resources), August 1, 2012. 

2Phone conversation with Kai Kuo (Los Angeles 

County Sanitation District), August 3, 2012. 

3Phone conversation with Victor Juan 

(SCAQMD), July 31, 2012 and April 26, 2012. 

4Phone conversation with Eugen Teszler 

(SCAQMD), August 2, 2012. 

5Phone conversation with Kai Kuo (Los Angeles 

County Sanitation District), August 3, 2012. 

6Phone conversation with Eric Wetherbee 

(VCAPCD), July 31, 2012. 

7Phone conversation with Steve Fields 

(California Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal 

Resources), August 1, 2012. 

8Phone conversation with Victor Juan 

(SCAQMD), July 31, 2012. 

9SCAQMD Staff Report Proposed Rule 1176 

Sumps and Wastewater Separators September 20, 

1989. 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35329), EPA 

proposed to approve the following rules 

into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule # Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD .......................... 4402 Crude Oil Production Sumps .................................................................... 12/15/11 02/23/12 

SJUVAPCD .......................... 4625 Wastewater Separators ............................................................................. 12/15/11 02/23/12 

We proposed to approve these rules 

because we determined that they 

comply with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Our proposed action 

contains more information on the rules 

and our evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received comments from the 

following party. 

1. Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice; 

letter dated July 13, 2012 and received 

July 13, 2012. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment #1: Earthjustice stated that 

Rule 4402 continues to include limits 

that are less stringent than those in 

other California districts. Specifically, 

the SJVUAPCD defines clean produced 

water as water with a VOC 

concentration of 35 mg/L or less while 

other California districts such as South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) limit the VOC concentration 

in wastewater to 5 mg/L. Earthjustice 

provided more detailed arguments 

supporting a 5 mg/L limit in Rule 4402 

in comments 2–4 below. 

Response #1: As explained in our 

technical support document (TSD) 

accompanying the proposed action, 

sources in the SCAQMD have greater 

options for disposal of the produced 

water than sources in the SJVUAPCD. 

Specifically, produced water in the 

SCAQMD can be disposed of into the 

sanitary sewer or reinjected into the 

ground without processing to meet a 5 

mg/L VOC limit. Discussions with the 

California Department of Oil, Gas, and 

Geothermal Resources confirmed that in 

the Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District (VCAPCD) there is no 

VOC concentration limit for reinjection 1

and the Los Angeles County Sanitation 

District confirmed the VOC 

concentration limits for wastewater 

discharged into a municipal sewage 

system are above SJVUAPCD’s 35 mg/L 

limit.2 See also response to comments 

2–4 below. 

Comment #2: Earthjustice stated that 

SJVUAPCD’s assertion that wastewater 

is not treated in SCAQMD is false and 

that EPA did not confirm SJVUAPCD’s 

claim. EPA’s TSD states that oil 

production facilities in SCAQMD can 

dispose of their wastewater in sanitary 

sewage systems or existing injection 

wells, but did not confirm that operators 

use non-treatment disposal options. 

Earthjustice has confirmed with 

SCAQMD staff that operators can and do 

comply with the 5 mg/L limit through 

wastewater treatment, in addition to 

wastewater disposal via injection wells 

and municipal sewer systems. 

Response #2: Most SCAQMD 

operators treat their wastewater to meet 

standards of the sanitation district or 

standards for reinjection, which are less 

stringent than the 5 mg/L VOC limit. 3 4

For example, the Los Angeles County 

Sanitation District allows wastewater 

with 60–75 mg/L of non-polar oil and 

grease to be discharged into the sewer 

system from oil field producers.5 Staff at 

Ventura County APCD similarly 

explained that 90–95% of the oil 

production facilities in VCAPCD do not 

treat the wastewater but instead transfer 

it to wastewater treatment facilities or 

reinject the wastewater into the 

ground.6 For reinjection, the fluid 

deposited back into the ground does not 

need to meet any VOC concentration 

limits.7 EPA’s discussion with 

SCAQMD staff confirmed that a few 

operators in SCAQMD are able to meet 

the 5 mg/L VOC limit in the wastewater 

without any treatment other than gravity 

separation. However, SCAQMD staff 

also noted that properties of wastewater 

(including VOC content) vary widely 

with the geological properties of the oil 

wells and the fact that a few SCAQMD 

operators can meet 5 mg/L with only 

gravity separation does not mean that all 

wells subject to SCAQMD Rule 1176, 

much less all wells subject to 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4402, can do the 

same.8 Thus, we have no evidence that 

oil producers in Los Angeles routinely 

treat their wastewater to 5 mg/L. 

Comment #3: Earthjustice stated that 

EPA did not confirm that wastewater 

treatment technologies are too 

expensive to be used to comply with the 

5 mg/L limit. Earthjustice confirmed 

with SCAQMD staff that wastewater 

treatment can be a more cost effective 

option. Operators in SCAQMD use 

Wemco® units as well as filters and 

other technologies to treat wastewater. 

The treatment methods have been found 

to be cost-effective in 1989. An analysis 

that explains why SJVUAPCD operators 

cannot adopt similar treatment is absent 

from EPA’s TSD and SJVUAPCD’s staff 

report. 

Response #3: EPA reviewed materials 

related to the adoption of SCAQMD 

Rule 1176 in 1989 and found that in fact 

the cost effectiveness of treating 

produced water to a 5 mg/L VOC limit 

was not analyzed. Rather, the costs 

evaluated in the 1989 SCAQMD staff 

report related to the installation of 

covers on secondary and tertiary sumps 

and ranged from an average of $8,000 to 

$18,900 per ton of VOC reduced 

respectively.9 Since secondary and 

tertiary sumps generally contain liquid 

with much higher VOC content than a 

clean produced water pond, installing a 

cover on a clean produced water pond 

would have much higher cost per ton of 

VOC reduced. Additionally, as 

mentioned in our response to comment 

2 above, SCAQMD staff have confirmed 

to EPA that many operators in SCAQMD 

do not treat their wastewater to the 5 

mg/L limit; rather these operators 

typically dispose of wastewater in the 

sanitary sewage system and are required 

to meet a 60 mg/L oil and grease limit 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64429 

10Phone conversation with Kai Kuo (Los Angeles 

County Sanitation District), August 3, 2012. 

11Phone conversation with Steve Fields 

(California Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal 

Resources), August 1, 2012. 

12SJVUAPCD Final Staff Report Revised 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 4402 December 15, 

2011. 

13Email correspondence with Victor Juan 

(SCAQMD), August 28, 2012. 

14SCAQMD Staff Report Proposed Rule 1176 

Sumps and Wastewater Separators September 20, 

1989. 

15Technical Support Document for EPA’s 

Proposed Notice on Rule 4402, Crude Oil 

Production Sumps, EPA Region IX, May 2012. 

for the Los Angeles County Sanitation 

District or dispose of wastewater 

through reinjection and are not required 

to meet any VOC concentration 

limits.10 11

In addition, we note that SJVUAPCD’s 

staff report, which was prepared as part 

of the District’s adoption of Rule 4402, 

includes a cost effectiveness analysis at 

Appendix B, Section II, Analysis of 

Clean Produced Water Compliance 

Options. The District’s analysis 

describes the types of control 

technology needed to treat wastewater 

from a 35 mg/L VOC concentration 

down to a 5 mg/L concentration. 

According to the District’s analysis, ‘‘a 

Wemco® will generally only get the 

VOC content down to about 20 mg/L;’’ 

therefore, additional water polishing 

equipment such as nut shell filters 

would be necessary to further reduce 

VOC levels down to 5 mg/L. This 

additional processing step adds to the 

overall capital and operational costs to 

further polish the clean produced 

water.12 EPA contacted SCAQMD staff 

regarding this point. SCAQMD staff 

have indicated that Wemcos® and other 

treatment equipment alone are generally 

not able to treat the wastewater down to 

a 5 mg/L VOC concentration.13

SJVUAPCD determined that the cost 

associated with installing the above 

equipment with the additional filters 

was approximately $54M/ton VOC 

reduced. This unusually high cost 

effectiveness value is heavily influenced 

by the low estimated emissions from 

clean produced water, 0.12 tons/year. 

Another more conservative cost analysis 

done by the District assumes an 

annualized cost of $4M/year and a 

higher tonnage of VOC reduced per 

pond. The resulting cost effectiveness 

would be about $70,000/ton VOC 

reduced, which exceeds reasonable 

costs under RACT.14 Based on our 

review of the District’s analysis and our 

discussions with SCAQMD, we found 

no basis to conclude that 5 mg/L is 

RACT. Moreover, we note that the 

commenter did not provide information 

sufficient to support such a conclusion. 

Comment #4: Earthjustice states that 

EPA requires SJVUAPCD to compare its 

rules not only to federal guidance, but 

also to current rules in other California 

air districts including SCAQMD, Bay 

Area AQMD, Sacramento Metropolitan 

AQMD, and Ventura County APCD. 

Earthjustice stated that it is not 

reasonable to claim that a technology 

which was deemed cost-effective in 

1989 to comply with a 5mg/L VOC limit 

is not cost-effective today. The 

SJVUAPCD must explain why the 

technologies are now prohibitively 

expensive. 

Response #4: As discussed above, 

compliance with a 5 mg/L VOC limit 

was not shown to be cost-effective in 

1989 and has been shown to exceed 

RACT in SJVUAPCD today. Most 

operators in South Coast AQMD and 

Ventura County APCD do not treat their 

wastewater to meet 5 mg/L, but instead 

dispose of the water through the 

sanitary sewer system or by reinjection. 

These options are not generally 

available in San Joaquin due to the 

remote locations of its oil production 

wells in relation to a municipal sewer 

system and the unavailability of 

reinjection wells.15

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rules as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 

approving these rules into the California 

SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 21, 

2012. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
64430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 7, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(411)(i)(B)(2) and 

(3) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(411) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(2) Rule 4402, ‘‘Crude Oil Production 

Sumps,’’ amended on December 15, 

2011. 

(3) Rule 4625, ‘‘Wastewater 

Separators,’’ amended on December 15, 

2011. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–25810 Filed 10–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Parts 300–3, 301–2, 301–10, 

301–11, 301–52, 301–70 and 301–71 

[FTR Amendment 2012–01; FTR Case 2011– 

301; Docket 2011–0018, Sequence 1] 

RIN 3090–AJ11 

Federal Travel Regulation; Per Diem, 

Miscellaneous Amendments 

AGENCY: Office of Government-wide 

Policy, General Services Administration 

(GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: GSA has adopted as final, an 

interim rule amending the Federal 

Travel Regulation (FTR) by changing, 

updating, and clarifying various 

provisions regarding temporary duty 

(TDY) travel. These changes include 

adjusting the definition of incidental 

expenses; clarifying necessary 

deduction amounts from the meals and 

incidental expense (M&IE) 

reimbursement on travel days; 

extending agencies the authority to 

issue blanket actual expense approval 

for TDY travel during PresidentiallyDeclared Disasters; and updating other 

miscellaneous provisions. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417, 

(202) 501–4755, for information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules. For clarification of content, 

contact Mr. Cy Greenidge, Program 

Analyst, Office of Government-wide 

Policy, at (202) 219–2349. Please cite 

FTR Amendment 2011–03; FTR Case 

2011–301. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

GSA reviewed the FTR for accuracy 

and currency and is consequently 

publishing this amendment to update 

certain sections in Chapters 300 and 301 

that pertain to definitions, web 

addresses, meal deductions, 

miscellaneous expenses, and other 

travel-related clarifications and updates. 

This amendment also adds a section 

that permits agencies to issue blanket 

actual expense authorizations for any 

employee who performs TDY travel in 

an area subject to a PresidentiallyDeclared Disaster. 

Accordingly, this final rule amends 

the FTR by: 

1. Section 300–3.1—Revising the term 

‘‘Incidental expenses’’ under the 

definition for ‘‘Per diem allowance.’’ 

These changes permit reimbursement of 

fees and tips, exclude mailing costs 

associated with filing travel vouchers 

and charge card bill payments, and 

remove the current transportation 

reimbursement as this expense is 

reimbursable via separate provisions in 

FTR part 301–10. 

2. Section 301–2.5—Referencing the 

new blanket actual expense 

authorization pursuant to 301–70.201. 

3. Section 301–10.421—Updating the 

heading to include valet parking 

attendants. 

4. Section 301–11.6—Updating 

regulatory references and web address 

information in the table pertaining to 

maximum per diem rates and actual 

expense rates. 

5. Section 301–11.7—Changing the 

term ‘‘lodging location’’ to ‘‘lodging 

facility’’ in determining maximum per 

diem reimbursement rates. 

6. Section 301–11.18—Indicating that 

for Government-provided meals on 

travel days, the entire allocated meal 

amount must be deducted from the 

decreased 75 percent rate. 

7. Section 301–11.26—Revising to 

focus on how to request a review of a 

location’s per diem rate. 

8. Section 301–11.29—Updating the 

web address for state tax exemption 

information. 

9. Section 301–11.30—Referencing the 

new blanket actual expense 

authorization pursuant to 301–70.201. 

10. Section 301–11.300—Revising 

‘‘natural disasters’’ to read ‘‘natural or 

manmade disasters’’ and adding 

Presidentially-Declared Disasters to the 

list of special events warranting actual 

expense reimbursement. 

11. Section 301–11.301—Referencing 

the new blanket actual expense 

authorization pursuant to 301–70.201. 

12. Section 301–11.302—Referencing 

the new blanket actual expense 

authorization pursuant to 301–70.201. 

13. Section 301–52.4—Removing the 

reference to a ‘‘fixed reduced per diem 

allowance.’’ 

14. Section 301–70.200—Referencing 

the new blanket actual expense 

authorization pursuant to 301–70.201. 

15. Section 301–70.201—Adding a 

new section which gives agencies the 

authority to issue a blanket 

authorization for actual expense 

reimbursement in the event of a 

Presidentially-Declared Disaster. 

16. Section 301–71.105—Referencing 

the new blanket actual expense 

authorization pursuant to 301–70.201. 

B. Summary of Comments Received 

GSA received no comments on the 

interim rule published in the Federal 

Register on September 7, 2011 (76 FR 

55273). 

C. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

Executive Orders (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, of reducing costs, of 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with