[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46847-46848]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18565]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 192, 193, and 195

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0337; Amdt. Nos. 192-119; 193-25; 195-99]
RIN 2137-AE85

Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of Regulatory References to
Technical Standards and Miscellaneous Amendments; Corrections

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: PHMSA published in the Federal Register of January 5, 2015 (80
FR 168), a document containing revisions to the Pipeline Safety
Regulations. That document inadvertently removed paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(4) in 49 CFR 192.153. This document removes that amendment
and makes several editorial changes.

DATES: This amendment is effective August 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Technical Information: Mike Israni by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Regulatory Information: Cheryl Whetsel by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA published in the Federal Register of
January 5, 2015 (80 FR 168), a document containing revisions to the
Pipeline Safety Regulations. That document inadvertently removed
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) in 49 CFR 192.153; incorrectly listed
a cross-reference in Sec.  193.2321(b)(1); incorrectly formatted the
word ``see'' in various sections in parts 192, 193, and 195; and
specified an incorrect authority citation in part 193. This document
corrects the final regulations to address these issues.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 192

    Incorporation by reference, Natural gas, Pipeline safety.

49 CFR Part 193

    Incorporation by reference, Liquefied natural gas, Pipeline safety.

49 CFR Part 195

    Anhydrous ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Incorporation by reference,
Petroleum pipeline safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA amends 49 CFR parts 192,
193, and 195 as follows:

PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 192 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, 60116, 60118 and 60137; and 49 CFR 1.53.

Sec.  192.55,  192.191, 192.735, 192.923, 192.933, and Appendix B to
Part 192 [Amended]

0
2. In 49 CFR part 192, remove ``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.
192.7)'' and add in its place ``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.
192.7)'' everywhere it appears in the following sections:
0
a. Section 192.55(e);
0
b. Section 192.735(b);
0
c. Section 192.923(b)(1);
0
d. Section 192.933(d)(1)(i); and
0
e. Appendix B to part 192.

Sec.  192.11  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  192.11:
0
a. Amend paragraph (a) by removing ``NFPA 58 and 59'' and adding in its
place ``NFPA 58 and NFPA 59''.
0
b. Amend paragraph (c) by removing ``NFPA 58 and 59'' and ``ANSI/NFPA
58 and 59'' and adding in their place the terms ``NFPA 58 and NFPA
59''.

0
4. In Sec.  192.153, paragraphs (b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) are added to
read as follows:

Sec.  192.153  Components fabricated by welding.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Regularly manufactured butt-welding fittings.
    (2) Pipe that has been produced and tested under a specification
listed in appendix B to this part.
    (3) Partial assemblies such as split rings or collars.
    (4) Prefabricated units that the manufacturer certifies have been
tested

to at least twice the maximum pressure to which they will be subjected
under the anticipated operating conditions.
* * * * *

PART 193--LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FACILITIES: FEDERAL SAFETY
STANDARDS

0
5. The authority citation for part 193 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, 60109,
60110, 60113, 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

Sec.  193.2321  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  193.2321, amend paragraph (b)(1) by removing
``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  193. 2012)'' and adding in its
place ``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  193.2013).''

PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE

0
7. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60116,
60118 and 60137; and 49 CFR 1.53.

Sec. Sec.  195.132, 195.205, 195.264, 195.405, and 195.432  [Amended]

0
8. In 49 CFR part 195, remove ``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.
195.3)'' and add in its place ``(incorporated by reference, see Sec.
195.3)'' everywhere it appears in the following sections:
0
a. Section 195.132(b)(1);
0
b. Section 195.205(b)(1) and (2);
0
c. Section 195.264(b)(2) and (e)(1) and (3);
0
d. Section 195.405(b); and
0
e. Section 195.432(c).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 24, 2015, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.97.
Stacy Cummings,
Interim Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2015-18565 Filed 8-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


Some industry commenters ( 942, 1098, 1100, 1629, 1866) recommended that the final rule make clear that the maintenance, repair and replacement of air pollution control devices are not subject to review under major NSR. Some of these commenters ( 942, 1100) suggested that this outcome be accomplished by categorically determining that such activities for control devices and monitoring equipment are RMRR. Another industry commenter ( 897) suggested that the installation of control devices not be subject to NSR. These comments were generally made in the context of whether control device costs should be included in the AMA; the commenters favored excluding these costs from the AMA and favored excluding these activities from NSR generally.

Response:

As we stated in section 3.4.2, in response to comments received on industry categoryspecific definitions of " process unit," we disagree with the commenters who wish to include pollution control equipment in the definition. We feel that periodic replacement of parts of emissions control equipment should be encouraged and would rarely lead to actual emissions increases. In instances where replacement of pollution control equipment may lead to emissions increases, you will either undergo major NSR for your increases or you may qualify for a Pollution Control Project exclusion. See 67 FR 80186. We do agree, however, that where the control equipment is an integral part of the process it should be included. Therefore, we are excluding associated pollution control equipment from the definition of the " process unit," except for control equipment that serves a dual purpose in the process. We know there are industries where pollution control equipment performs a dual purpose; for example, condensers often serve to control emissions of organic air pollutants while serving as a integral part of the operation of a fractionation column. A low NOx burner is another example of a dual purpose part. In both cases, these pieces of control equipment are integral to the process and, thus, should be included as part of the process unit.

Comment:

Some industry commenters ( 577, 797, 906, 1201, 1797) requested that certain activities be specifically classified as RMRR. Activities they requested to be classified as RMRR included the following. 4  Approaches for RMRR Other than the AMA or ERP Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 4 19

The common practice of changing out the engine core in a combustion turbine when it is due for overhaul ( to reduce downtime). The removed engine core is overhauled offline and is then available to be switched in for the next like kind engine core that reaches the point of overhaul. Unless components are upgraded, the heat input remains the same and so does the emissions rate. ( Industry commenters 577, 797, 906, 1082, 1797)

Replacement of the high pressure section of a steam turbine with GE's " dense pack" turbine blade system. ( Industry commenter 1201)

Replacement of a furnace, cupola, or melter liner. The commenter suggested language to be included in the final RMRR as an example of an activity that qualifies as RMRR. ( Industry commenter 1045)

Boiler tuning. ( Industry commenter 1100)

Response:

We believe there are simply too many activities in too many industries to effectively improve major NSR implementation through creation of lists. Moreover, we agree with commenters who said lists of excluded or non excluded activities would provide only a " snapshot in time" that would need to be reviewed and periodically updated for each industry sector. We have consequently decided to not list activities that have a categorical exclusion for routine equipment replacements.

Comment:

Some commenters suggested other approaches to the RMRR exclusion and other exclusions from NSR. These suggestions included the following.

One industry commenter ( 914) recommended that any change that does not increase the achievable hourly emissions ( as determined based on the permit and/ or original design parameters) of existing equipment, processes, and emissions units be defined as RMRR. This commenter went on to request that we clarify that if there is no increase in potential to emit and no change in a design parameter, a change is not subject to NSR and whether the change qualifies as RMRR is not a consideration.

One industry commenter ( 1100) did not believe that the proposed approaches negate the need for an improved definition of RMRR. The commenter suggested the following. 4  Approaches for RMRR Other than the AMA or ERP Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 4 20   The activity cannot involve the construction of a new " process unit."   The activity cannot involve the replacement of an entire process unit based on a test no more stringent than the NSPS test.   The activity must be identical or functionally equivalent and must not change the basic design parameters of the affected process unit.   The activity cannot increase the source's maximum achievable hourly emissions rate of any NSR pollutant above levels that can be achieved when the source is operated within the basic design parameters of the process unit.   Certain activities, e. g., boiler tuning, and maintenance, repair and replacement of air pollution equipment or CEMS, should be categorically exempted as RMRR.

Response:

We agree with commenters that prohibiting changes in basic design parameters is an appropriate safeguards for determining which activities qualify for the ERP. For this reason we have inlcuded this requirement in the final rule. In addition, as an added safeguard, the final ERP added a stipulation that activities that cause the process unit to exceed any emission limitation or operational limitation ( that has the effect of constraining emissions) thta is legally enforceable and that applies to any part of the process unit cannot qualify for the ERP.

Accordingly, you may categorize identical replacement activities as routine equipment replacements under the RMRR exclusion if the fixed capital cost of such replacement plus the cost of associated activities does not exceed 20 percent of the replacement value of the process unit, and if the replacement does not alter a basic design parameter of the process unit or cause the process unit to exceed any emission limitation or operational limitation ( that has the effect of constraining emissions) that applies to any part of the process unit.

Similar to identical replacements, replacements with functionally equivalent equipment qualify for the ERP, subject to certain safeguards. That is, the fixed capital cost of such replacements plus the cost of associated activities may not exceed 20 percent of the fixed capital cost of constructing a new process unit, and the replacement may not alter a basic design parameter of the process unit nor require a permit revision related to the emissions.

Also, for utilities, we added the basic design parameter of maximum design steam flow rating and clarified from the proposal that the correct parameter is maximum hourly heat input. Sources may request that their reviewing authorities specify fuel type ( such as coal or oil) when setting basic design parameters at a combustion device that can accommodate multiple fuel types, and, for coal fired units, they should consider that the fuel consumption rate will vary depending on the quality of the coal for a given heat input. When establishing fuel consumption specifications, the minimum fuel quality based on BTU content should be used for coal fired units. 4  Approaches for RMRR Other than the AMA or ERP Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 4 21 Comment:

One State/ local commenter ( 1044) recommended that the rest of the nation adopt California's NSR regulations.

Response:

Two local air pollution control agencies noted that they currently already exempt all replacements with identical equipment from NSR.

As observed at the time of our RMRR proposal, we believe that most identical replacements are necessary for the safe, efficient and reliable operations of virtually all industrial operations; are not of regulatory concern; will improve air quality ( e. g., by decreasing startup, shutdown, and malfunctions); and thus should qualify for the ERP, so we are finalizing the provision for identical replacement of equipment essentially as we proposed it.

We support the air pollution agencies that have already exempted this type of change from NSR, although we have concerns about doing so without appropriate backstops, even for identical equipment replacements.

Comment:

Some environmental commenters ( 514, 522) suggested that the best approach to providing regulatory certainty to industry would be to require all facilities to adopt modern emission controls by a specified date or according to a specific timeline. One of these commenters ( 514) endorsed the approach suggested by the National Academy of Public Administration of requiring all large pollution sources to adopt modern pollution controls within 5 years.

Response:

The purpose of the NSR program is to protect public health and welfare, as well as national parks and wilderness areas, as new sources of air pollution are built and when existing sources are modified in a way that significantly increases air pollutant emissions. Specifically, NSR's purpose is to ensure that when new sources are built or existing sources undergo major modifications: ( 1) air quality improves if the change occurs where the air currently does not meet federal air quality standards; and ( 2) air quality is not significantly degraded where the air currently meets federal standards. The fundamental philosophy underlying the NSR program is that a source should install modern pollution control equipment when it is built ( for new sources) or when it makes a major modification ( for existing sources). Congress believed that incorporating pollution controls into the design and construction when new units are built, or 4  Approaches for RMRR Other than the AMA or ERP Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 4 22 when major modifications occur, is generally more efficient than adding on controls after construction. The type of program the commenter is describing is more similar to other programs under the Clean Air Act such as the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) program for hazardous air pollutants, the Acid Rain Program or the Regional Nitrogen Oxides Strategy. These programs were specifically designed to get reductions from existing sources on a set timeframe. EPA is very supportive of these programs and of President Bush's Clear Skies legislation which would get significant reductions of air pollution from electric utilties. However, the NSR program was not designed for that purpose and EPA cannot effect that end through a change in its regulations.

Comment:

One environmental commenter ( 948) believed the EPA should require mandatory advance determinations of NSR applicability for routine maintenance exclusions. This commenter also believed the proposed rule will put utilities that have complied with NSR at a competitive disadvantage.

Response:

Maintenance activities are necessary and helpful in maintaining, facilitating, restoring or improving the safety, reliability, availability, or efficiency of industrial facilities and are performed everyday at the facilities. To require mandatory advance determinatiosn would bring a grinding halt to such activities as sources waited on determinations from reviewing authorities and would place an enormous workload on those revieiwng authorities. EPA does not believe it would serve any benefit to require such advance determination.

Comment:

One industry commenter ( 951) believed that any project that is part of a long term service agreement should be categorically exempted from NSR.

Response:

EPA believes that activities which qualify as RMRR should be exempt from NSR reqgardless of whether they have been covered by such a long term service agreement. We believe offering the ERP as an option for evaluating whether activities are RMRR and the caseby case approach are the appropriate mechanisms for identifying activities that fall within the RMRR exclusion.

Comment: 4  Approaches for RMRR Other than the AMA or ERP Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 4 23 One industry commenter ( 951) believed that any project involving steam turbine overhaul work should be categorically exempted from NSR.

Response:

As noted above, we believe there are simply too many activities in too many industries to effectively improve major NSR implementation through creation of lists. Moreover, we agree with commenters who said lists of excluded or non excluded activities would provide only a " snapshot in time" that would need to be reviewed and periodically updated for each industry sector. We have consequently decided to not list activities that have a categorical exclusion for routine equipment replacements. Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 5 1 Chapter 5  Energy Efficiency Projects 5.1 Overview In the proposal, we acknowledged that certain types of projects that improve energy efficiency would not qualify as RMRR. We solicited comment on whether there was the need for a " stand alone" exclusion for activities that promote energy efficiency.

We received public comments supporting and opposing a stand alone exclusion from NSR for energy efficiency projects. These comments are summarized in section 5.2. We also requested and received a few comments on the impacts of the existing NSR program on energy efficiency projects and other activities that produce net benefits to human health and the environment. These comments are summarized in section 5.3.

5.2 Stand Alone Exclusion for Energy Efficiency Projects Comment:

5.2.1 Support for a Stand Alone Exclusion Several industry commenters ( 902, 906, 920, 921, 1000, 1050, 1052, 1078, 1091, 1098, 1099, 1110, 1112, 1123, 1129, 1132, 1136, 1137, 1160, 1213, 1236, 1292, 1368, 1463, 1629, 1792, 1798) supported a stand alone general exclusion from NSR for energy efficiency projects. One State/ local commenter ( 1199) supported NSR exemptions for a specified list ( to be developed by us) of well defined efficiency improvements that do not result in equipment reconstruction or emissions increases. A number of the supportive industry commenters suggested safeguards to be included in a stand alone exclusion, as follows.

Some commenters ( 906, 1110, 1132) favored specifically excluding from the definition of " major modification" activities/ projects that promote energy efficiency and/ or resource conservation by meeting all of the following criteria: ( 1) the project results in lower emissions per unit of production or lower energy utilization per unit of production; ( 2) the percent decrease in emissions or energy utilization per unit of production is greater than the percent increase in maximum hourly emission rates; ( 3) project costs do not exceed 50 percent of the replacement value of the process unit; and ( 4) the project does not result in an increase in allowable emissions. One of the commenters ( 906) gave the example of a cogeneration facility that adds inlet air coolers to its gas turbine generator.

One commenter ( 1129) stated that there should be an NSR exclusion for situations where a company makes operational changes or adds new equipment to improve operational efficiency, provided that there is ( 1) no increase in maximum hourly 5  Energy Efficiency Projects Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 5 2 emission rates and ( 2) no increase in the design capacity. The commenter strongly encouraged EPA to clarify this exclusion in a separate, stand alone, " capacitybased exclusion.

One commenter ( 1160) proposed safeguards that would function similarly to the Clean Unit test contained in the December 2002 NSR final rules. This commenter would apply a new emissions increase test for projects that increase energy efficiency. Under the commenter's proposed test, the EPA would deem the project not to result in an emissions increase if it: ( 1) reduces emissions on a pollutant per product output basis, and ( 2) does not increase maximum hourly emission rates. The commenter contended that these safeguards would protect against the rare efficiency project that might otherwise result in large emissions increases.

Some commenters ( 920, 921, 1000, 1123) supported an exclusion for any project intended solely to improve energy efficiency of a unit, both for utilities and nonutilities These commenters suggested that the exclusion be limited to projects that do not increase raw material or fuel input to achieve the higher production rate. The commenters indicated that facilities would be required to submit annual reports on raw material and fuel usage rates, along with production data, to ensure that the project qualified.

Some commenters ( 1099, 1112, 1213, 1368, 1629) supported addition of an NSR provision that indicates that efficiency improvement projects that do not constitute MRR are not considered physical changes or changes in the method of operation, with the safeguard that the project must not increase the maximum capacity of the unit to emit pollutants, as determined on an hourly basis over the past 5 years.

One commenter ( 1463) supported the stand alone energy efficiency project exclusion for projects that increase production without increasing emissions per unit of production, with the same safeguards as proposed for AMA.

One commenter ( 1798) stated that electric generating units and natural gas pipeline facilities should have the flexibility to conduct RMRR activities to improve efficiency without regard to cost, up to the 50 percent reconstruction cost threshold.

Some of the supportive industry commenters above suggested that the stand alone exclusion for energy efficiency projects be expanded to cover other types of projects, as follows.

Some commenters ( 906, 1110, 1132) favored including projects that promote resource conservation. 5  Energy Efficiency Projects Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 5 3

One commenter ( 902) recommended that sources be allowed to propose any projects that can be demonstrated to produce net benefits to human health and the environment, including ( but not limited to) energy efficiency activities.

Some commenters ( 1098, 1792) supported including projects that increase reliability and safety. One of these commenters ( 1792) stated that along with this expanded stand alone exclusion, the commenter would support a capacity based approach to RMRR.

One supportive industry commenter ( 1136) urged EPA, either separately or in the definition of " functionally equivalent," to clarify that efficiency improvements are desirable and are excluded from NSR. Another supportive industry commenter ( 1078) indicated that the standalone exclusion for energy efficiency projects might not be necessary, given that the AMA provides a safe harbor for all types of activities, not just maintenance, repair, and replacement actions.

One supportive industry commenter ( 1137) indicated that EPA's adoption of the ERP and AMA should be helpful in accommodating energy efficiency projects, and that the actual toprojected actual test contained in the December 2002 NSR final rules also should remove impediments to energy efficiency projects. Nevertheless, the commenter stated that these new provisions would not eliminate hurdles to many efficiency projects, and urged EPA to work with industry to determine whether an appropriately crafted efficiency exclusion could be developed.. Because the commenter believes that clarification of the RMRR requirements is urgently needed, the commenter recommended that EPA move forward to finalize the RMRR proposals without waiting for a stand alone energy efficiency exclusion to be developed.

5.2.2 Opposition to a Stand Alone Exclusion Some State/ local ( 1270, 1361, 1443, 1643), Federal ( 1002), and citizen ( 784) commenters opposed a stand alone exclusion from NSR for energy efficiency projects. The commenters added the following reasons for their opposition.

State/ local commenter 1270 asserted that experience shows that the positive impact of an energy improvement project will not always outweigh the environmental impact; the commenter would like to retain the ability to review energy improvement projects.

State/ local commenter 1443 and citizen commenter 784 pointed out that efficiency upgrades will frequently create incentives to further utilize a source and subsequently increase mass emissions. Citizen commenter 784 stated that if activities that result in small efficiency gains can qualify as RMRR, older, dirtier 5  Energy Efficiency Projects Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 5 4 electric generating units will be better able to out compete newer, much cleaner plants ( that have higher costs due to emission controls).

State/ local commenter 1443 also stated that the exclusion of efficiency increases is not sufficiently related to the concept of " routine" and is thus arbitrary. The commenter expressed the belief that the proposed RMRR rules are not protective of air quality, and that any additional exemptions will only make this problem worse. The commenter stated that if best available controls are not required at the time of equipment installation, the State will be forced to later implement more stringent requirements on existing sources that will be more costly than the same reduction would be if obtained through NSR.

State/ local commenter 1643 indicated that exempting energy efficiency projects would lead to uncontrolled emissions increases.

Federal commenter 1002 suggested that such an exclusion could create uncertainty and an opportunity for interpretation by regulators and industry users fo the NSR program.

State/ local commenter 1361 stated that the elimination of an applicability determination for any industry that " improves energy efficiency," without any further definition of the term, qualifications on appropriate activities, or an appropriate examination of emissions and air quality impacts is not justified. This commenter contended that like other activities, these projects must be subject to appropriate oversight and environmental reviews.

Response:

We strongly support efforts to improve energy efficiency at existing power plants. These activities reduce the amount of air pollution emitted per unit of electricity generated and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that the final ERP supports energy efficiency projects and that the actual to projected actual applicability test contained in the December 2002 NSR final rules also should remove impediments to energy efficiency projects. Together, these rules will obviate the need for a specified RMRR provision for energy efficiency projects. Thus, at this time we are not finalizing a provision to categorically exclude energy efficiency projects from major NSR.

5.3 Effect of NSR on Energy Efficiency and Other Beneficial Projects Some industry commenters ( 533, 1001, 1052, 1095, 1124, 1129, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1138, 1201, 1236, 1237) provided comments on the impact of the NSR program on decisions to proceed with activities that produce net benefits to human health and the environment, including, 5  Energy Efficiency Projects Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 5 5 but not limited to, energy efficiency activities. These commenters generally indicated that in recent years EPA has broadened the applicability of NSR beyond the original, intended scope, which was substantial modifications. The commenters generally contended that the expense and delay associated with NSR scrutiny, whether or not the project is ultimately judged to be subject to NSR, has caused many facilities to forego needed and beneficial maintenance, repair, and replacement projects, even those that would reduce emissions. Some of the commenters provided examples of such projects that have been discouraged or foregone due to such concerns. Some of the commenters indicated that projects that improve efficiency, availability, reliability, and safety are both economically and environmentally beneficial, and properly should be considered RMRR.

One of these industry commenters ( 1201) stated that it is in the unique position of having not only its operating facilities but also its products impacted by the NSR program. This commenter markets several products that are aimed at making industrial and utility power generation more efficient ( examples provided, including DensePack replacement turbine blades), and stated that in the current climate, companies have no idea which projects will be considered RMRR and which must undergo NSR.

Some State/ local commenters ( 1241, 1361) offered a different perspective on the effect of NSR on energy efficiency projects:

One State/ local commenter ( 1241) argued that EPA is incorrect in stating that energy efficiency projects are being discouraged by NSR, particularly under the new actual to projected actual applicability test. This commenter added that any projects that are discouraged by NSR are ones that increase emissions.

One State/ local commenter ( 1361) asserted that the December 2002 final NSR rules provide a broad range of NSR exemptions ( including revised baseline determinations, Clean Unit designations, pollution control projects, PALS, and combinations of these provisions, as well as an RMRR exemption) under which energy efficiency projects will certainly occur. This commenter also stated that the proposed RMRR rules will allow facilities to use accounting principles to undertake activities that are not specifically excluded. The commenter contended that the analyses undertaken by EPA to determine the impacts of each of these rules indicates that little environmental benefit will result from their implementation, and potentially increased emissions, environmental harm, public health impacts, and exacerbated air quality improvement efforts will result. For these reasons, the commenter opposes this combination of regulations.

Response:

We strongly support efforts to improve energy efficiency at existing power plants. These activities reduce the amount of air pollution emitted per unit of electricity generated and also 5  Energy Efficiency Projects Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 5 6 reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that the final ERP supports energy efficiency projects and that the actual to projected actual applicability test contained in the December 2002 NSR final rules also should remove impediments to energy efficiency projects. Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 1 Chapter 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Italics represent EPA responses in preamble or from CAMD. Bold italics represent EC/ R's thoughts on remaining gaps and possible approaches to addressing them.

6.1 Overview We requested comments on the IPM analysis of the emission consequences of the proposed RMRR options. Public comments on the IPM analysis are in section 6.2. Other comments addressed the requirements of Executive Order 12866, which are included in section 6.3.

6.2 IPM and Other Analyses 6.2.1 Validity of IPM Assumptions Comment:

Five environmental ( 1127, 1150, 1195, 1472, 1649), five State/ local commenters ( 1241, 1243, 1264, 1361, 1643), and one citizen commenter ( 1823) said that the underlying assumptions EPA used in the IPM analysis were flawed and resulted in erroneous conclusions regarding the emission reduction potential of the proposed RMRR rules.

One environmental commenter ( 1150) noted that the IPM is a valid tool for the purpose of comparing the outcome of the proposed rule with a base case that reflects the enforcment of the CAA without the rule. However, several environmental commenters ( 1127, 1150, 1195, 1472, 1649) and one State/ local commenter ( 1241) stated that EPA's IPM analysis incorrectly assumes that no major modifications at any older units would ever trigger the requirement to add new pollution controls. In addition, according to commenters ( 1150, 1195, 1241), EPA also erroneously assumes that this lack of major maintenance and refurbishment will have very little impact on the performance of those power plants, when in reality their emissions would increase significantly. Commenter 1241 added that an assumption that " grandfathered" plants will continue to operate in perpetuity without controls is contrary to Congressional intent. Commenters said the baseline assumption should be that at some future date older plants will either have to be renovated or shutdown.

The commenters ( 1127, 1150, 1472, 1649) cite the Clean Air Task Force analysis for power plants, which estimates that EPA's proposed rule changes will result in at least 7 million more tons of SO 2 and 2.4 million more tons of NOx annually. The commenters said, using EPA's own methods to translate the incremental increases in pollution expected by 2020, the Clean Air Task Force estimates that finalization of the proposed rules will result in the following.

° 20,000 additional premature deaths per year 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 2 ° 400,000 additional asthma attacks per year ° 12,000 additional cases of chronic bronchitis per year ° More than $ 100 billion per year in the economic costs associated with these negative health effects.

Because of these and other impacts, the commenters said EPA should withdraw the proposal.

One environmental commenter ( 1195) said the IPM runs were designed to demonstrate that an expanded set of maintenance and/ or refurbishment activities at coal fired power plants from NSR would not lead to increased emissions. The commenter said EPA misrepresented the base case by assuming that power plant owners would continue to run their plants without initiating any serious maintenance. As a result, the heat rate and capacity of each plant would worsen slightly, but the overall availability of the plants would not be affected. In contrast, under the no NSR cases, the heat rates improve and the capacity increases. The commenter said a realistic base case is one that shows that as plants age they would be either retired and replaced with cleaner plants, or they would be refurbished and would reduce their emissions significantly as BACT is applied. Compared to a realistic base case, all of the EPA's no NSR cases would show significant increases in emissions. The Clean Air Task Force has estimated that a realistic base case reflecting current regulations would show SO 2 dropping by over 75 percent and NOx dropping by 65 percent by 2020.

One State/ local commenter ( 1241) said another erroneous assumption is that if EPA's proposals are not adopted, efficiency improvement projects that reduce emissions will be deterred by a program that regulates only activities that increase emissions. The commenter said this assumption defies common sense and is inconsistent with the historical record. EPA's reference to the Report to the President is insubstantial as that report only refers to unspecified " anecdotal evidence" of foregone efficiency projects. In contrast, in preparing its Report to Congress, the National Academy of Public Administration ( NAPA) found " no data to evaluate the situations in which NSR has obstructed these projects." The commenter added that this assumption is further degraded by EPA's failure to distinguish between power plants and other sources and its failure to consider the impact of the recently finalized rules, which change the method for calculating emissions increases at sources other than power plants. The commenter argued that not all efficiency improvement projects reduce emissions and that any adverse emissions impact is relatively minor compared to the significant emission benefits from installing BACT level controls on currently uncontrolled plants.

One State/ local commenter ( 1643) believed the assumptions in the IPM model were incorrect. The commenter disagreed that increased capacity would be from incrementally better controlled existing units. Instead, the commenter believed the comparison should be between existing units with BACT/ LAER controls and existing units without BACT/ LAER controls. 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 3 One State/ local commenter ( 1361) said that instead of improving the environment, improvements in reliability of a facility would allow it to run at a higher capacity, for more sustained periods of time, leading to increased capacity, and a commensurate increase in emissions.

One citizen commenter ( 1823) stated that the proposed rule is based on unproven computer models using questionable assumptions.

One State/ local commenter ( 1264) said the " use of model data, rather than the use of accurate inventory data, leads to imprecise estimates that minimize the impacts of this rule, especially regarding issues such as transported pollution." This commenter concluded that " EPA owes the public a realistic analysis of the effects of the proposed rules, and a clear demonstration that this proposal will not only benefit, but protect the public as well. EPA must guarantee that this proposal will result in real pollution reductions, using real data."

One State/ local commenter ( 1243) also had extensive comments on the validity of the IPM analyses, especially as they relate to the power sector. See section 6.2.2, below, for more information.

Response:

We disagree with the commenters who believe that emissions would be significantly higher for electric utilities than are estimated under the IPM model runs. These commenters' arguments rely on the assumption that EPA's base case is invalid because, if major NSR rules were left unchanged, eventually all coal fired utilities would either apply BACT or deteriorate so badly that they would have to shut down. We do not believe this assumption is accurate. Because of the high retrofit costs of BACT, many facilities would never install BACT, but would remain operational by conducting maintenance to the extent possible allowed under the current RMRR exclusion, and, where changes were nonroutine, by taking production limits and incremental control measures to escape major NSR, etc. There would be some decline in efficiency, as the EPA's base case modeled, but the units would likely remain viable, generating assets for years without triggering BACT requirements. Thus, we believe our base case represents a far more realistic assessment of what would happen under current major NSR rules than the dramatic BACT reductions presented by the commenters.

Furthermore, in the future, while some of the facilities may be modified and subjected to control, nationwide emissions as estimated in the model runs would still rise to the level of the Acid Rain cap for SO 2. To the degree these modifications come at facilities that are otherwise projected to be controlled because of existing SO 2 and NOx requirements, there would be no difference in effect between the model runs and alternative scenarios. Our analysis confirms that efficiency improvements result in environmental benefits that offset ( or more than offset) emissions increases from improved availability, but that previous major NSR rules discouraged 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 4 these improvements. Therefore, we affirm the overall conclusion of our analysis   that this rule has no practical effect on the environmental benefits of major NSR in the future. We have presented additional, more detailed supporting information in our final RIA.

Related to the one commenters concern that it is erroneous to assume that if EPA's proposals are not adopted, efficiency improvement projects that reduce emissions will be deterred by a program that regulates only activities that increase emissions, as noted in its Report to the President on new Source Review in 2002 EPA found that NSR discourages some types of energy efficiency improvements when the benefit to the company of peforming such improvements is outweighed by the costs to retrofit pollution controls or to take measures necessary to avoid a significant net increase. EPA also noted that some maintenance activities can have energy efficiency effects and resultant emission increases and that these activities may be discouraged if there is a need to go through NSR review. As to the reference in the NAPA report, the report also stated that " there is no reason to doubt that the industry has accurately reported some maintenance and efficiency projects rendered uneconomic in substantial part due to NSR." The report aslo stated " to the extent that well controlled sources perceive obstacles to improving their efficiency and maintaining their equipment, NSR may indeed be producing illogical outcomes."

Several commenters addressed the capacity based assumptions we used in the IPM. For example, one commenter said that instead of improving the environment, improvements in reliability of a facility would allow it to run at a higher capacity, for more sustained periods of time, leading to increased capacity, and a commensurate increase in emissions. We agree that improvements at a facility would increase its capacity factor and this is what we modeled. We do not agree that this increase in capacity factor would lead to an increase in emissions under most scenarios. In particular, SO 2 emissions for utilities are capped under title IV, so any increase in emissions at one facility would have to be offset by a decrease at another facility. For NOx, which is not capped, the analysis shows that emissions may decrease or increase slightly, depending in large part on how much the capacity factor is assumed to increase. However, the small change in NOx emissions ( up or down) is insignificant when compared to total utility sector NOx emissions of about 4 million tons per year.

We also disagree with commenters who thought our use of the IPM as an analytical tool was invalid. We have used the IPM for many rulemakings dating back to 1996. These include the title IV NOx rulemaking and the NOx SIP call. During these rulemakings, all aspects of the model were subject to public review and, in many cases, we updated the model in response to public comments. Furthermore, during the NOx SIP call litigation, our use of IPM was challenged and subsequently upheld by the D. C. Circuit.

Commenters also challenged our use of a model instead of " real" plant data to evaluate the impacts of the proposed changes to the RMRR program. Because power plants are all connected to a grid selling electricity to consumers, actions at one plant can affect actions at 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 5 another. For instance, an increase of generation at one plant would be offset by a decrease of emissions at another plant. Analysis of individual plants would not capture this complex interaction, but use of the IPM does capture it. Furthermore, IPM models the power sector using a number of model plants. These model plants are based on inventory data collected from real plants and are carefully designed to represent those real plants, with the result that IPM accurately models the effect that this rule will have on emissions from the power sector.

6.2.2 Power Sector Conclusions Comment:

One industry commenter ( 1218) supported the conclusions EPA drew from the IPM and National Energy Modeling System ( NEMS) analyses. In contrast, three State/ local commenters ( 1241, 1243, 946) said the IPM analysis was deficient with respect to estimated impacts of the proposed RMRR changes on the electric utility sector.

One industry commenter ( 1218) said the IPM and DOE NEMS analyses correctly demonstrate that EPA's RMRR proposal will have no appreciable impact on emissions from the power sector. According to the commenter, this conclusion is consistent with EPA's findings in a 1989 report, " 1989 EPA Base Case Forecasts," which demonstrated that continuing to allow utilities to undertake activities including on going annual operating and maintenance activities and a major refurbishment when the unit reached 30 years of operating life are exactly the type of activities allowed under EPA's RMRR proposal.

One State/ local commenter ( 1243) listed several reasons why the IPM analysis is deficient with respect to what impact the proposed changes in the RMRR criteria relative to the current criteria would have on air emissions and costs from the electric utility sectors. This is because of the following.

° The study only analyzes the impact of various scenarios on the national emissions of SO 2 and NOx , rather than on emissions emanating from single stationary sources, or individual power plants, as the PSD rules require. The problem created by analyzing the wrong type of air quality impact is compounded in this study, since the computer models include the national cap on SO 2 emissions, which eliminates any possibility of increased SO 2 emissions at the national level. State/ local commenter ( 1241) agreed.

° The base cases that the study creates do not correspond to a reasonable representation of the historical record since the PSD regulations were adopted, nor do they attempt to explicitly represent what impact the current NSR/ PSD regulations are likely to have on air emissions at either a local ( stationary source) 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 6 or national level. Thus, the base cases fail to represent a realistic baseline from which changes in air emissions due to changes in RMRR criteria can be measured.

° The alternative regulatory scenarios do not correspond in any clear and explicit way to any proposed set of alternative RMRR criteria. Thus, it becomes meaningless to compare the computer model results for any of the alternative scenarios to the NSR base cases for the purpose of determining what the impact on air emissions might be of alternative RMRR criteria.

° The analysis does not include any engineering results relating the impact of costeffective repairs and replacements at any given type of coal fired generating unit on that unit's operating parameters, i. e., availability, heat rate, or capacity of such units. Without knowing these impacts on unit performance, one cannot know which types of repairs would or would not likely occur either under the current NSR regulations or under alternative criteria. Only the frequency of occurrence of cost effective repairs and replacements that might increase air emissions from a stationary source might be affected by changing the RMRR criteria. However, the study does not state which proposed changes in RMRR might lead to this situation.

° The complex computer modeling results for the numerous scenarios simply confirm the intuitively obvious theoretical hypotheses that overall increases in coal generating unit capacity and availability on a national average basis tend to increase air emissions from the electric sector, and that decreases in average coal plant heat rates on a national average tend to decrease air emissions from the electric sector. Thus, the complex modeling does not provide any quantitative information that is directly relevant to knowing which types of potential repairs and replacements at which generating units would likely cause a violation of the current NSR regulations and alternative RMRR criteria and which would not.

° The historical data ( last 20 years) indicate that while average coal plant heat rates have remained quite constant ( or slowly decreased) in spite of numerous repairs and replacements, the average plant availabilities have continued to increase fairly steadily at a significantly greater rate. These historical trends under the current NSR rules are completely contrary to the trends EPA included in the NSR base case analyzed by the IPM model.

One State/ local commenter ( 946) said the use of model plants and other generalized assumptions creates imprecision regarding IPM predicted impacts of a given rule change on individual facilities. In fact, it is quite possible that the use of national average characteristics would tend to minimize the projected impacts of the proposed rule. 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 7 Response:

We agree with the commenter that the recent analysis and the estimated impact on emissions is consistent with the previous EPA report in 1989. Our analysis confirms that efficiency improvements result in environmental benefits that offset ( or more than offset) emissions increases from improved availability, but that previous major NSR rules discouraged these improvements.

We used the IPM model to develop a bounding analysis of the effects of the final rule. We analyzed several scenarios which represent the range of possible outcomes within the electric utility sector based on our assessment of how companies manage their plants given the regulatory consequences of the NSR program. Our goal was to provide a bounding analysis; it was not possible using IPM to generate a list of specific projects at specific facilities that would result from our final rule and to then compute the emissions and other consequences of such projects. Rather, we made an overall assessment of the range of effects that such projects could have if carried out across the utility sector according to reasonable expectations ( example projects are discussed in Appendix A of the RIA). We then made estimates of what range of effects could be expected on parameters such as heat rate, availability, and emissions of various pollutants. These effects were estimated using the engineering judgement of EPA experts familiar with the electric utility industry. Because we modeled across a range of different parameters, we expect that the actual effect of the rule on the electric generating sector will be somewhere within the range we analyzed. We continue to believe that this analysis is appropriate for the purposes of the RIA.

6.2.3 Applicability of IPM to Other Industries Comment:

Two State/ local commenters ( 946, 1264) believed that the IPM model " cannot accurately model the impacts of other large sources such as refineries, steel mills, and chemical manufacturers." One State/ local commenter ( 1443) questioned the applicability of an analysis of the utility sector to other industries, particularly relatively small sources that are subject to NSR compliance for sources emitting as little as 10 tons per year of VOCs or NOx. According to the commenter, EPA has no basis to conclude that the proposed revisions would be beneficial or detrimental in the most polluted area of the country ( SCAQMD).

Response:

We believe that the conclusions of this analysis are generally applicable to all industrial sectors. We do not have tools like IPM for modeling the response of non utility sectors, so our ability to present a quantitative bounding analysis specific to any other sector is limited. We also note that there are some important differences between the utility sector and other sectors. 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 8 Unlike utilities, other sectors: ( 1) are not subject to a nationwide SO 2 cap; ( 2) are not interconnected and thus do not experience potentially large changes in utilization resulting from changes in dispatch order; ( 3) were, until March 2003, subject to the actual to potential test for NSR applicability; and ( 4) generally have lower emissions, such that emissions are not nearly as sensitive to small changes in utilization.

Despite these differences, we believe that the overall conclusions of the IPM analysis are valid for other sectors. The largest stationary sources of SO 2 and NOx emissions other than electric utilities are industrial boilers. These units are very similar to boilers in the electric utility industry. They usually only provide steam or energy for the industrial facility where they are located, although in some cases they may serve multiple facilities. We believe the IPM runs showing the impacts on NOx emissions, which were not subjected to a cap in our analysis, resulting from different scenarios with a range of effects on capacity or efficiency are equally valid related to SO 2 and NOx emissions from industrial boilers. In some cases there may be small increases and in other cases there would be an overall reduction in emissions.

For all other industrial sources, we believe that, in general, facilities in these sectors have regular inspection, maintenance, repair and equipment replacement, as appropriate to the type of equipment and process unit. Work is performed to ensure that a facility maintains its productive capacity and facilitates its safe and reliable operation. Equipment replacement activities generally just maintain the operational capability of the facility. In some cases, it may increase the production efficiency of the facility which will usually reduce the amount of emissions per product. These changes generally do not affect the overall emissions of the facility, because the emissions are driven by total production at the facility, which in turn is driven by the demand for the product   not by the fact that there has been an equipment replacement. We do not believe the final rule will lead to any increases in emissions for these sectors nationally. We believe that the modeled effects of utilities dominate the effects for nonutilities and the overall conclusion of the utility analysis   that the structure of the ERP has no practical impact on emissions reductions under the NSR program   is valid, despite our inability to model these other sectors individually.

6.2.4 NEMS Comment:

Environmental commenter 1195 said while the NEMS model may have translated the assumed improvements correctly into emissions reductions, there is no basis set forth for the level of improvements that are assumed. For example, heat rate improvements of 5, 10, and 15 percent are suggested, but no basis for this level of improvement is provided. The commenter said cost is always an important factor in projects to improve heat rate, and cited work done for a major Northeastern utility in the early to mid 1990s that found very little additional heat rate improvement was cost effective. 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 9 One State/ local commenter ( 1243) said the use of the NEMS model does not add any significant findings to the impact analysis. The commenter noted that the model scenarios related to the 5, 10, and 15 percent improvements in heat rates are very large relative to what can likely be achieved from strictly an engineering perspective, not to speak of a cost effective basis. The commenter added that no causal linkage was made between specific sets of plant operating parameters and specific proposed changes in the RMRR criteria. Similarly, the NEMS analysis omitted any increased maintenance costs that would be necessary in order to achieve the improvements in plant performance. Finally, the analysis only reports NEMS results for national emissions of air pollutant, not stationary source specific levels of air emissions. The commenter concluded that the analysis is not particularly useful for understanding the likely impact the proposed RMRR criteria will have on air emissions, until the impact of these new criteria on likely coal plant operating parameters is quantified relative to existing criteria.

Response:

The analysis was designed to analyze a range of scenarios related to heat rate improvements. Between the IPM runs and the NEMS runs, efficiency gains of 0, 1.6, 3.2, 5, 10 and 15 percent were examined. We believe that this broad range of estimates represents a number of possible realities. However, we agree that heat rate improvements on the lower end or the range are more likely, which is why we examined a range of heat rate improvements of less than 5 percent.

The DOE and EPA model runs had to apply overall gains to the entire fleet of electric utility facilities. It was not possible to model the potential gains associated with increased certainty and greater maintenance for each individual facility. However, the approach used in the various analyses was valid for the purposes of a bounding analysis to better understand the full range of possible future scenarios. While the likelihood of each scenario varies, these analyses clearly cover the full range of potential futures and thus do an excellent job of presenting the fullest range of possible impacts of the final rule.

In such analyses, it is difficult to specifically estimate the exact impact on maintenance costs of the final rule. The uncertainty about the previous RMRR exclusion had been determined to be causing reductions or delays in maintenance of the facilities. While these reductions or delays in maintenance may have led to reduced costs, they also will lead to a greater number of forced outages to replace parts that had been allow to completely fail. These forced outage replacements would likely have incurred higher costs than any savings on maintenance costs in the short term. Greater certainty will lead to more regular maintenance should reduce these outages and their associated costs. We believe overall that maintenance costs will just be shifted in time more than significantly increased or decreased by the rule.

6.2.5 June 2002 Report to the President 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 10 Comment:

One State/ local commenter ( 1243) said the June 2002 Report to the President does not contribute significantly to the RMRR analysis. The commenter said EPA's concern that a possible repair or replacement that would lead to substantial efficiency improvement would not be done because it would trigger a need for expensive pollution controls is overblown. In fact, the commenter said, the current NSR criteria for when pollution controls are needed are simply designed to keep emissions at or below historical levels. Thus a repair or replacement that makes a plant more efficient, absent a commensurate increase in utilization of the source, may reduce emissions. Even in the face of an increase of capacity or availability, the plant owner could agree to a permit restriction on the number of hours of operation to avoid an emissions increase. So long as the repair or replacement were cost effective given the agreed upon limit to the capacity factor, then there would be no disincentive caused by the current NSR regulations in making such a repair.

Response:

As noted in its Report to the President on new Source Review in 2002 EPA found that NSR discourages some types of energy efficiency improvements when the benefit to the company of peforming such improvements is outweighed by the costs to retrofit pollution controls or to take measures necessary to avoid a significant net increase. EPA also noted that some maintenance activities can have energy efficiency effects and resultant emission increases and that these activities may be discouraged if there is a need to go through NSR review. While limits on operations may be taken, these limits would have a tendency to accumulate over time as more and more such maintenance projects were undetaken causing over time severe limitations on the operational capability of the source.

6.2.6 Other Analyses Needed Comment:

One Federal ( 1001), two environmental ( 540, 1150), and three State/ local ( 946, 1361, 1443) commenters said additional analyses are needed to support EPA's conclusion that the proposed RMRR criteria are beneficial.

Environmental commenter 1150 said the proposal lacks any reference to the gains accomplished by NSR, the ongoing enforcement actions, settlements reached as a result of those actions, or the potential gains from the investigations now pending. EPA's reliance on improvements in productive capacity as the measure of success fails to consider that productive capacity must be balanced with the interests of health and welfare. 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 11 Environmental commenter 1150 said it is critical to EPA's burden to consider all the relevant factors leading to its conclusion that the exemptions are necessary and appropriate is at the very least an assessment of the expected effects on emissions, which in turn will determine the public health benefits and costs of the proposed rule. Although data on emission reductions achieved under the existing program are available, EPA has stated that it cannot accurately quantify the effects the proposed rule will have on emissions. Before promulgating a final rule, EPA should provide such a quantitative assessment of the rule.

Federal commenter 1002 said that there was no explicit analysis or consideration of the impact that the proposal would have on " grandfathered" coal fired power plants or on the emissions from geographic regions such as the Midwest where many of the old power plants and industrial facilities are located. Such analyses would be important not only for assessing possible U. S. Canada transboundary air pollution consequences but also the possible air pollution transport impact that could exist within the United States between the Midwestern states where many of the " grandfathered" plants are located and the Northeastern states.

One State/ local commenter ( 946) said EPA owes the public a more convincing demonstration, based on location and region specific information using actual emissions data from actual facilities. Another State/ local commenter ( 1361) said EPA has not demonstrated that the RMRR proposal will have a net environmental benefit. This commenter was particularly concerned about the impact of the proposal on nonattainment areas that suffer from pollutant transport from upwind states.

One environmental commenter ( 540) said EPA failed to provide a basic analysis of the age of affected industrial units and the application of the NSR RMRR provisions. The commenter said EPA should evaluate the impacted industries by highlighting the impacted units, their age of operations, expected " normal life," and whether BACT has been installed.

One State/ local commenter ( 1443) said EPA and DOE have not considered the intangible benefits resulting from NSR programs. In particular, the emission limitations imposed through NSR have created incentives for sources to develop innovative means to control such emissions, which is particularly important to heavily polluted areas. Examples include development of low NOx burner technology and low VOC coatings and solvents.

Response:

As shown in the final RIA, it is clear that, for the electric generating sector, the overall scope of the routine maintenance exclusion has little practical impact on the benefits that would be achieved in the future under the NSR program. Capped SO 2 emissions remain unchanged, and NO x emissions change slightly depending upon which modeled scenario is closest to what actually occurs. This change is particularly insignificant when compared to the power sector's 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 12 national NO x emissions of over 4 million tons per year, or the more than 7 million tons per year of NO x reductions expected from recently promulgated rules.

In addition, the EPA believes that the conclusions of this analysis are generally applicable to all industrial sectors. We do not have tools like IPM for modeling the response of non utility sectors, so our ability to present a quantitative bounding analysis specific to any other sector is limited. We also note that there are some important differences between the utility sector and other sectors. Unlike utilities, other sectors: ( 1) are not subject to a nationwide SO 2 cap, ( 2) are not interconnected and thus do not experience potentially large changes in utilization resulting from changes in dispatch order, ( 3) were, until March 2003, subject to the actual to potential test for NSR applicability, and ( 4) generally have lower emissions, such that emissions are not nearly as sensitive to small changes in utilization.

Despite these differences, the EPA believes that the overall conclusions of the IPM analysis are valid for other sectors. The largest stationary sources of SO2 and NOx emissions other electric utilities are industrial boilers. These units are very similar to boilers in the electric utility industry. They usually only provide steam or energy for the industrial facility where they are located though in some cases they may serve multiple facilities. We believe the IPM runs showing the impacts on NOx emissions, which were not subjected to a cap in our analysis, resulting from different scenarios which a range of effects on capacity or efficiency are equally valid related to SO2 and NOx emissions from industrial boilers. In some cases there may be small increases and in other cases there would be an overall reduction in emissions.

For all other industrial sources, we believe that, in general, facilities in these sectors have regular maintenance, repair and equipment replacement cycles. Work is performed during these cycles to ensure that a facility maintains its productive capacity and facilitates its safe and reliable operation. Equipment replacement activities generally just maintain the operational capability of the facility. In some cases, it may increase the production efficiency of the facility which will usually reduce the amount of emissions per product. These changes generally do not affect the overall emissions of the facility because the emissions are driven by total production at the facility which in turn is driven by the demand for the product   not by the fact that there has been an equipment replacement. We do not believe the final rule will lead to any increases in emissions for these sectors nationally. The EPA believes that the modeled effects of utilities dominate the effects for non utilities, and the overall conclusion of the utility analysis   that the structure of the RMRR replacement has no practical impact on emissions reductions under the NSR program   is valid, despite our inability to model these other sectors individually.

6.2.7 Comments on August 2002 Information Collection Request Comment: 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 13 Environmental commenter 1150 said the August 2002 ICR pertains solely to the burdens, costs and benefits to regulated sources. The fact that EPA did not seek comment on expected emission reductions or health benefits ( or costs), skews the analysis and renders any conclusion arbitrary and capricious. The commenter said in a rulemaking of this magnitude that EPA has the authority and obligation to conduct a thorough review of both the economic and emissions aspects of NSR through a systematic collection of data from the regulated industry. Instead, the commenter said EPA has been woefully deficient in collecting and maintaining data necessary to the proper enforcement of the program. The commenter cited conclusions summarized in a report by NAPA on the NSR program in support of his views.

Response:

The primary purposes of the Paperwork reduction Act is minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, small businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, Federal contractors, State, local and tribal governments, and other persons resulting from the collection of information by or for the Federal Government and ensure the greatest possible public benefit from and maximize the utility of information created, collected, maintained, used, shared and disseminated by or for the Federal Government. The information collection request prepared for a regualtion is to document the paperwork burden being placed on individuals, small businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, Federal contractors, State, local and tribal governments, and other persons EPA and the States have other means available to them under the Clean Air Act to collect information and to enforce applicable requirements. These are not the focus of an information collection request for a specific rule.

6.3 Executive Order 12866 Analyses Comment:

Six environmental commenters ( 712, 713, 714, 738, 1150, 1514) said EPA failed to meet its requirements under E. O. 12866 to provide the required RIA. They said one should be developed and the public should have a chance to review it.

One environmental commenter ( 1150) stated that EPA has failed to meet procedural requirements of E. O. 12866, including section 6( a), which requires EPA to involve those intended to benefit from and be burdened by the regulation before proposing it, section 6( a)( 3)( B)( ii), which requires EPA to explain the statutory basis for its proposal, and section 6( a)( 3)( C)( ii), which requires EPA to assess impacts on public health, safety, and the natural environment. The commenter concluded that any action by EPA to promulgate the proposed rule would be arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law.

Other environmental commenters ( 712, 713, 714, 738) stated that EPA has failed to provide the required RIA, even though the OMB has found that the rule is economically 6  Analyses of Proposed Regulatory Action Internal and Deliberative Draft August 6, 2003 Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute 6 14 significant. These commenters ( 712, 713, 714, 738, 1514) requested that EPA fully analyze the health and environmental impacts of the proposed rule and prepare an RIA. They suggested that the proposed rule will have major health and environmental impacts if implemented and cited various estimates of adverse impacts. For example, a study by AbT Associates concluded, among other things, that requiring power plants to install modern air pollution controls would prevent over 18,700 premature deaths each year and provide well over $ 100 billion per year in monetary benefits. Delaying these improvements will lead to tremendous health and monetary costs.

One commenter ( 1514) said the public should have an opportunity to review the RIA as part of the public comment process.

Response:

To comply with the Executive Order, EPA prepared a draft Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA) at the time of proposal and made that available for public comment. Based on these comments EPA has prepared a final RIA which has been submitted and cleared by OMB and placed in the docket for this rulemaking.


Appendix II.C.5.

Processing Factors Used in Estimating Residues

of OP Pesticides in Food Commodities

This appendix is available on EPA’s website at

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/common_mech_groups.htm#op"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/common_mech_groups.htm#op

A CD containing the data in this appendix may also be obtained by

contacting the Office of Pesticide Programs Public Docket

Docket #  EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0618

One Potomac Yard

12777 S. Crystal Drive Room S-4400

Arlington, Virginia, 22202

703-305-5805

Monday through Friday, 8:30 am – 4:00 pm


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37456-37457]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14801]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0375]

Safety Zone; Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for annual
fireworks events in the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan zone at
specified times from June 15, 2013, until September 7, 2013.

This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the
navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after
fireworks displays. During enforcement, the Coast Guard will enforce
restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone.
No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being
enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.935 will be enforced at the times
specified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section that follows.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department, Coast Guard
Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.935, Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI,
at the following times for the following events:
    (1) Polish Fest fireworks display on June 15, 2013, from 10:15 p.m.
until 11:00 p.m.;
    (2) Summerfest fireworks display on June 26, 2013, and July 3,
2013, from 9:15 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.;
    (3) Festa Italiana fireworks display on each day of July 19, 20,
and 21, 2013, from 10:15 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;
    (4) German Fest fireworks display on July 26 and 27, 2013, from
10:15 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;
    (5) Irish Fest fireworks display on August 18, 2013, from 10:15
p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;
    (6) Indian Summer fireworks display on September 6 and 7, 2013,
from 9:15 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative to enter, move within, or
exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter
the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.935 Safety
Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition
to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide
the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement
period via broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.
The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative
may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    Dated: June 11, 2013.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2013-14801 Filed 6-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 52378]
[DOCID:fr25au10-114]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 12h-1(f), OMB Control No. 3235-0632, SEC File No. 270-570.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 12h-1(f) (17 CFR 240.12h-1(f)) provides an exemption from the
registration requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
compensatory employee stock options of issuers that are not required to
file periodic reports under the Exchange Act and that have 500 or more
option holders and more than $10 million in assets at its most recently
ended fiscal year. The information required under Rule 12h-1(f) is not
filed with the Commission. Rule 12h-1(f) permits issuers to provide the
required information (other than the issuer's books and records) to the
option holders and holders of share received on exercise of
compensatory employee stock options either by: (i) Physical or
electronic delivery of the information; or (ii) notice to the option
holders and holders of shares received on exercise of compensatory
employee stock options of the availability of the information on a
password-protected Internet site and any password needed to access the
information. We estimate that it takes approximately 2 burden hours per
response to provide the information required under Rule 12h-1(f) and it
is filed by approximately 40 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 2
hours per response (5 hours) is prepared by the company for a total
annual reporting burden of 80 hours (.5 hours per response x 40
responses).
    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 control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to: Shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, Securities
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6423 General Green Way,
Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: August 18, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21032 Filed 8-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P