55834 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Notices 

Meeting Information 

The session will begin with a brief 

presentation by the EPA Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water. 

Copies of EPA’s presentation will be 

available at the meeting and posted on 

EPA’s Web site following the meeting at 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/

sdwa/ccr/. An oral comment session 

will follow the presentation. Oral 

comments will be limited to three (3) 

minutes each, and it is preferred that 

only one person present the statement 

on behalf of a group or organization to 

accommodate as many participants as 

possible. Registered attendees 

requesting to make an oral presentation 

will be placed on the commenting 

schedule. Time slots are limited and 

will be filled on a first-come, firstserved basis. EPA may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral presentations, 

but will not respond to the 

presentations. A facilitated participant 

discussion of the potential CCR 

Electronic Delivery Approaches will 

follow the oral comment session. You 

may present oral comments during the 

meeting and/or submit written 

comments and supporting information 

directly to EPA up until the close of the 

public comment period on October 11, 

2012, to provide an opportunity for 

participants to respond to what they 

heard at the meeting. Written statements 

and supporting information submitted 

during the comment period will be 

considered in the same manner as any 

oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public 

meeting. Written comments may be 

submitted to ccrretrospectivereview@

epa.gov. If participants are finished 

before 4:00 p.m., the meeting may come 

to a close before the scheduled 4:00 p.m. 

end time. All attendees must go through 

a metal detector, sign in with the 

security desk and show governmentissued photo identification to enter the 

building. 

Special Accommodations 

For information on access or 

accommodations for individuals with 

disabilities, please contact Adrienne 

Harris at (202) 250–8793 or by email at 

harris.adrienne@epa.gov. Please allow 

at least five business days prior to the 

meeting to give EPA time to process 

your request. 

Background 

Consumer Confidence Reports are a 

key part of the public right-to-know as 

established in the 1996 Amendments to 

the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 

section 1414(c)). The Consumer 

Confidence Report, or CCR, is an annual 

water quality report that a community 

water system is required by Federal 

regulations (63 FR 44512, August 19, 

1998) to provide to its customers by July 

1 each year. Community Water Systems 

(CWSs) serving more than 10,000 

persons are required to mail or 

otherwise directly deliver these reports. 

States may allow CWSs serving fewer 

than 10,000 persons to provide these 

reports by other means. The report lists 

the regulated contaminants found in the 

drinking water, as well as health effects 

information related to violations of the 

drinking water standards. CCRs often 

allow for informed choices and 

increases dialogue between water 

systems and their customers. More 

information on CCRs can be accessed on 

EPA’s Web site at http://water.epa.gov/ 

lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ccr/index.cfm. 

In August 2011, EPA finalized its 

‘‘Plan for Periodic Retrospective 

Reviews of Existing Regulations.’’ Since 

1998, when the CCR rule was finalized, 

the communication of information and 

the speed with which information can 

be shared have greatly expanded, along 

with a corresponding increase in the 

diversity of communication tools. EPA 

included the CCR Rule in its 

retrospective review plan to explore 

ways to promote greater transparency 

and public participation in protecting 

the nation’s drinking water. Through the 

Agency’s CCR retrospective review, EPA 

is evaluating opportunities to improve 

the effectiveness of communicating 

drinking water information to the 

public, while lowering the burden of 

CCR requirements for water systems and 

states. One example suggested by water 

systems is to allow electronic delivery 

through email, thereby reducing mailing 

charges. As EPA evaluates electronic 

delivery approaches, the Agency will 

consider impacts on consumer burden, 

environmental justice and state 

implementation. By improving 

communication, customers are better 

prepared to make informed decisions 

and the readership of CCRs also may 

increase. 

Dated: September 4, 2012. 

Nancy K. Stoner, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Water. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22344 Filed 9–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0636; FRL–9725–7] 

Notice of Opportunity To Comment on 

a Methodology for Allocating 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions to a 

Combined Heat and Power 

Configuration Under the Renewable 

Fuels Program, and the Application of 

this Methodology to a Proposed Plant 

by Dakota Spirit AgEnergy in 

Spiritwood, ND 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: EPA is evaluating a petition 

by Dakota Spirit AgEnergy for approval 

of a fuel pathway for its corn ethanol 

plant under the Renewable Fuels 

Standard (RFS) program. The corn 

ethanol plant would import process 

steam from a combined heat and power 

(CHP) system located at an offsite 

facility. EPA is inviting comment on the 

application of a certain methodology for 

allocating greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions for the steam and on the 

feasibility and appropriateness of using 

this allocation methodology for other 

similar CHP configurations under the 

RFS program. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0636, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Air and Radiation Docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0542. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0636, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460, Attention Air and Radiation 

Docket, ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0542. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0636. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Notices 55835 

1 75 FR 14670. 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Venu Ghanta, Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality (MC6401A), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

564–1374; fax number: (202) 564–1686; 

email address: ghanta.venu@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

As part of changes to the Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS) program adopted in 

a rule published on March 26, 2010,1

EPA specified the types of renewable 

fuels eligible to participate in the RFS 

program through approved fuel 

pathways. Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426(f) 

of the RFS regulations lists three critical 

components of an approved fuel 

pathway: (1) Fuel type; (2) feedstock; 

and (3) production process. Each 

specific combination of the three 

components, or fuel pathway, is 

assigned a renewable fuel category for 

use of the fuel in the RFS program. EPA 

may also independently approve 

additional fuel pathways not currently 

listed in Table 1 for participation in the 

RFS program, or a third party may 

petition for EPA to evaluate a new fuel 

pathway in accordance with § 80.1416. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA 

received a petition from Dakota Spirit 

AgEnergy (‘‘Dakota’’) on October 15, 

2011, requesting that EPA evaluate a 

new fuel pathway’s lifecycle GHG 

reduction and provide a determination 

of the renewable fuel category for which 

the new pathway may be eligible. 

Dakota is proposing to build a dry-mill 

corn ethanol plant in Spiritwood, North 

Dakota, with a nameplate production 

capacity of 65 million gallons of ethanol 

per year. Dakota’s proposed process is 

unlike those used in pathways modeled 

for the 2010 RFS rule in that they plan 

to meet their process steam needs by 

importing steam from the adjacent 

Spiritwood Station coal-fired power 

plant, which would operate in a 

combined heat and power (CHP) mode. 

EPA has not previously considered 

the treatment of steam from an offsite 

CHP plant in a lifecycle emissions 

accounting analysis under the RFS 

program. EPA is not aware of a previous 

regulatory context where an allocation 

approach has been applied to determine 

the emissions associated with process 

steam from an offsite facility. This 

notice describes the methodology EPA 

is considering to allocate emissions to 

the imported steam Dakota plans to use 

for biofuels production, as well as the 

Agency’s rationale for selecting this 

methodology in the context of the RFS 

program and for the type of 

configuration being considered. EPA 

invites comment on the application of 

the GHG allocation methodology and on 

the feasibility and appropriateness of 

using this allocation methodology for 

other similar CHP configurations under 

the RFS program. 

Background on CHP 

CHP is an efficient, clean, and reliable 

approach to generating power and 

thermal energy from a single fuel 

source. By installing a CHP system 

designed to meet the thermal and 

electrical base loads of a facility, CHP 

can greatly increase the facility’s 

operational efficiency and decrease 

energy costs. CHP systems offer 

considerable environmental benefits 

when compared with purchased 

electricity and onsite-generated heat. By 

capturing and utilizing heat that would 

otherwise be wasted from the 

production of electricity, CHP systems 

require less fuel than equivalent 

separate heat and power systems to 

produce the same amount of energy. 

In the 2010 RFS rule, EPA evaluated 

a corn ethanol biorefinery that utilized 

an onsite CHP system as part of the 

ethanol production process. The process 

evaluated a CHP system installed at the 

biorefinery which generated process 

steam and electricity for use in the 

process for producing ethanol. Dakota’s 

proposed approach is different in that 

they plan to import process steam from 

the adjacent Spiritwood Station power 

plant that will operate in CHP mode. 

The Spiritwood power plant combusts 

coal in a circulating fluidized-bed boiler 

that will generate steam at high 

temperature and pressure. This high 

pressure steam will be sent through a 

high-pressure steam turbine (HPST), 

where energy will be extracted to 

produce electricity. The steam will exit 

the HPST at lower pressure and 

temperature, at which point some of the 

steam will be diverted to the Dakota 

biorefinery plant to provide thermal 

energy for the ethanol production 

process. The remaining steam at 

Spiritwood will be sent through a lowpressure steam turbine (LPST) to 

produce additional electricity. The 

extraction steam diverted for use at the 

ethanol plant will result in a decrease in 

the amount of power to be generated 

from the power plant. Therefore, 

although the amount of electricity 

generated is reduced, the total fuel 

consumed and the resulting GHG 

emissions of the power plant remain 

unchanged. 

To determine the emissions 

associated with the extracted steam, the 

total emissions of the Spiritwood power 

plant need to be allocated to the power 

plant’s power production and to the 

steam extracted for use at the 

biorefinery. EPA analyzed the Dakota 

CHP configuration and reviewed several 

different allocation methods, including 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
55836 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Notices 

2 Jointly convened by the World Business Council 

for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the 

World Resources Institute (WRI), Allocation of 

emissions from a Combined Heat and Power Plant, 

September 2006. 

3The GHG Protocol recommends the use of this 

approach if the thermal output of the CHP system 

is to be used for mechanical power 

4Useful energy is defined as the ability of heat 

to perform work. 

5Cogeneration: Proposed Approach for 

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting. 

California Air Resources Board: Climate Change 

Reporting, Handout for ARB’s GHG Technical Team 

Discussions, June 2007. 

6 General Reporting Protocol, Version 1.1, The 

Climate Registry, May 2008. 

7 Jointly convened by the World Business Council 

for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the 

World Resources Institute (WRI), Allocation of 

Emissions from a Combined Heat and Power Plant, 

September 2006. 

8 Jointly convened by the World Business Council 

for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the 

World Resources Institute (WRI), Allocation of 

emissions from a Combined Heat and Power Plant, 

September 2006. 

the GHG Protocol.2 EPA’s review 

indicated that currently there is no one 

recommended allocation method for 

allocating emissions to the energy 

outputs (electrical and thermal) from a 

CHP system. EPA’s review also 

indicated that the most appropriate 

allocation methodology for a CHP 

system will be dependent on the type of 

CHP configuration in use, as well as the 

primary use of the system’s electrical 

and thermal outputs. Based on the plant 

configuration presented in the Dakota 

petition, EPA is considering using the 

‘‘work potential’’ allocation approach to 

allocate emissions. 

Work Potential Allocation Approach 

EPA considers the work potential 

allocation approach to be most 

appropriate for CHP systems that use 

heat to primarily produce mechanical 

work or power, such as the case at the 

Spiritwood plant where the primary use 

for the steam is for power generation.3

The work potential approach allocates 

emissions based on the useful energy 4

represented by electric power and heat. 

For the configuration presented in the 

Dakota petition, the method allocates 

emissions to the extracted steam based 

on the amount of electricity that the 

steam would have produced had the 

steam not been diverted for use at the 

biorefinery. 

The Spiritwood power plant is 

designed for the primary function of 

generating electricity. The total 

emissions at the Spiritwood plant are 

constant, whether steam is diverted or 

not. When steam is diverted to the 

Dakota biorefinery, the emissions 

associated with the diverted steam and 

the resulting loss in electricity 

production is evaluated via the work 

potential method. We can determine an 

emission factor for the power plant 

when it is just generating electricity and 

not diverting steam to the Dakota 

biorefinery (i.e., operating in a ‘‘power 

only’’ mode). The GHG emissions 

attributed to the extracted steam is 

determined by estimating the amount of 

power not generated by the power plant 

because the steam was diverted from the 

turbine, and applying the power plant’s 

‘‘power only’’ emissions factor to that 

value. The emission factor is unchanged 

since the total emissions at the 

Spiritwood plant are unchanged and 

only a small portion of the steam energy 

generated at the power plant is diverted 

to the biorefinery. The process for 

determining the steam GHG emission 

factor using the work allocation 

approach is summarized by the 

following steps: 

1. Calculate the GHG emission factor 

for the Spiritwood power plant without 

any steam extracted; 

2. Determine the amount of electricity 

that is not generated due to the 

extraction of steam for the Dakota plant; 

and 

3. Apply the Spiritwood emissions 

factor to the amount of electricity not 

generated due to steam extraction and 

calculate the associated emissions. 

This following example illustrates 

how the work potential method 

allocates emissions based on useful 

energy produced. In Dakota’s petition, 

they presented an example where the 

Spiritwood plant generates 92 MW of 

electric power in power-only mode, but 

only produces 82 MW of electric power 

in CHP mode due to the steam 

extraction. Thus, the steam extraction 

displaces about 11% of the total power 

production. Using the work potential 

allocation method, the extracted steam 

is allocated 11% of the total emissions 

from the Spiritwood plant, whereas the 

remaining 89% of emissions are 

allocated to electricity production. 

Other Allocation Approaches 

EPA reviewed other allocation 

approaches to assess their 

appropriateness for allocating emissions 

for the Dakota petition. The other two 

most common methods to allocate 

emissions from a CHP system are: 

Efficiency Allocation Method—The 

efficiency method allocates GHG 

emissions based on the amount of fuel 

used to produce each final energy 

stream. Emissions are allocated based 

on the efficiencies of thermal energy 

and electricity production, and the 

emission allocation will vary based on 

how the electrical and thermal 

efficiencies are defined. The actual 

efficiencies of heat and power 

production are often not clearly defined 

for CHP systems, and assumed default 

values are typically used. 

Conversion or Energy Content 

Method—This method allocates 

emissions based on the relative amounts 

of power and thermal energy output. It 

makes no allowance for the relative 

value of the outputs or the relative 

efficiencies of generation and simply 

allocates emissions based on the relative 

energy content of each output. 

The efficiency and energy content 

allocation approaches are based on 

assumptions, either of the efficiencies 

with which steam and electricity are 

generated, or on the relative values of 

energy outputs. As an example, the 

emission allocation of the efficiency 

method will vary based on how the 

electrical and thermal efficiencies are 

defined. Under these approaches, the 

emissions allocated to the remaining 

electricity generation (in terms of lbs/ 

MWh) at the Spiritwood plant in CHP 

mode would be lower than the original 

emissions factor for electricity generated 

by Spiritwood operating in power-only 

mode, indicating an over-allocation of 

emissions to the extraction steam. 

Since CHP system design and 

operating characteristics vary so widely, 

leading organizations in this field have 

not developed a consensus on one 

preferred allocation method. The 

California Air Resources Board issued a 

technical document as part of its 

Climate Change Reporting 

Requirements 5 that reviewed several 

allocation methods but did not 

recommend any one allocation method 

in particular. The Climate Registry 

(TCR),6 the former EPA Climate Leaders 

program, and the GHG Protocol 7

recommend the efficiency method, and 

that CHP facilities identify actual 

thermal energy and electricity 

production efficiencies. In the absence 

of actual emissions, default efficiencies 

of 35% for electricity (grid generation 

efficiency) and 80% for steam (stand 

alone boiler efficiency) are suggested. 

Neither the default nor calculated 

efficiencies appear representative of the 

Spiritwood operations. However, as 

stated above, the GHG Protocol 8 also 

recommends the use of the work 

potential method if the thermal output 

of the CHP system is going to be used 

for mechanical power. 

The Western Climate Initiative 

received various recommendations on 

the treatment of combined heat and 

power in its initial draft design 

guidance for recording greenhouse gas 

(‘‘GHG’’) emissions since it has 

implications in both the industrial and 

electricity sectors. The 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Notices 55837 

9The WCI Partner jurisdictions recognize the 

importance of combined heat and power 

(cogeneration) in the program scope and are 

continuing to evaluate its implications for the 

program design. Western Climate Initiative, Design 

Recommendations for the WCI Regional Cap-andTrade Program. September 23, 2008, Corrected 

March 13, 2009. 

10British Standards Institute (BSI), PAS 2050: 

2011, Specification for the assessment of the life 

cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and 

services, Section 8.5, Emissions from energy 

production using CHP. 

recommendations varied based on the 

type of CHP configuration. WCI in its 

final 2008 recommendation 9 did not 

advance one allocation method over 

another, stating ‘‘adequate 

quantification methods will be 

established for emissions sources prior 

to including them in the program’’. The 

British Standards Institute (BSI)’s 

Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 

2050 10 recommends using an approach 

based on the unit of useful energy 

delivered. The specification 

recommends ‘‘the allocation shall be 

carried out in proportion to the amount 

of useful energy delivered in each form, 

multiplied by the intensity of GHG 

emissions associated with each unit of 

useful energy delivered as heat and 

electricity.’’ This methodology 

acknowledges that each CHP system 

may have a different ratio of outputs of 

thermal and electrical energy. 

Application of the Work Potential 

Allocation Methodology to the Dakota 

Plant 

Under the RFS2 program, EPA is 

considering use of the work potential 

method for the configuration outlined in 

the Dakota petition because the primary 

purpose of the steam generated at 

Spiritwood power plant before 

extraction is to produce power. This 

method allocates the emissions to 

extracted steam based on the amount of 

power displaced (i.e., the electricity not 

generated). 

A Memorandum to the Docket 

explains in more detail how the work 

potential methodology would be 

applied to the plant configuration 

proposed for the Dakota plant, resulting 

in a specific GHG emission factor per 

mmbtu of steam energy. This emissions 

factor would be used in analyzing the 

total GHG emissions per mmbtu of 

ethanol produced by the Dakota facility, 

as part of determining whether the 

ethanol produced by the facility would 

qualify under the lifecycle GHG 

thresholds established in the RFS 

program. For the configuration outlined 

in the Dakota petition, EPA’s analysis 

finds that the process steam has an 

emission factor of 53,175 grams CO2-eq/ 

mmbtu steam. 

EPA invites comments on the 

proposed application of the work 

potential methodology to determine 

emissions associated with imported 

steam to the Dakota plant in the context 

of lifecycle emissions accounting. 

Furthermore, EPA invites comment on 

applying the work potential approach to 

other plants with similar CHP 

configurations under the RFS program. 

EPA also requests information on the 

appropriateness of applying alternative 

allocation approaches outlined in this 

notice to the Dakota plant, as well as 

any other approaches that could also be 

used to allocate emissions to steam for 

this specific CHP configuration under 

the RFS program. 

Dated: August 31, 2012. 

Margo Tsirigotis Oge, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22347 Filed 9–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Board Meeting 

AGENCY: Farm Credit System Insurance 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Regular meeting. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

regular meeting of the Farm Credit 

System Insurance Corporation Board 

(Board). 

DATE AND TIME: The meeting of the 

Board will be held at the offices of the 

Farm Credit Administration in McLean, 

Virginia, on September 13, 2012, from 

1:00 p.m. until such time as the Board 

concludes its business. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm 

Credit System Insurance Corporation 

Board, (703) 883–4009, TTY (703) 883– 

4056. 

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit System 

Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm 

Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of 

this meeting of the Board will be open 

to the public (limited space available) 

and parts will be closed to the public. 

In order to increase the accessibility to 

Board meetings, persons requiring 

assistance should make arrangements in 

advance. The matters to be considered 

at the meeting are: 

Closed Session 

• Confidential Report on Farm Credit 

System Performance 

Open Session 

A. Approval of Minutes 

• June 14, 2012 (Regular Meeting) 

B. Business Reports 

• FCSIC Quarterly Financial Reports 

• Report on Insured and Other 

Obligations 

• Quarterly Report on Annual 

Performance Plan 

C. New Business 

• Annual Performance Plan FY 2013– 

2014 

• Proposed 2013 and 2014 Budgets 

• Insurance Fund Progress Review and 

Setting of Premium Range Guidance 

for 2013 

Dated: September 6, 2012. 

Dale L. Aultman, 

Secretary, Farm Credit System Insurance 

Corporation Board. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22359 Filed 9–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6710–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are 

requested concerning whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Commission, 

including whether the information shall 

have practical utility; the accuracy of 

the Commission’s burden estimate; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

and ways to further reduce the 

information collection burden on small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. The FCC may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

control number. No person shall be 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES