[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 115-116]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31821]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0264; FRL-9957-21]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an
Existing Collection (EPA ICR No. 1246.13); Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: ``Reporting and Recordkeeping for Asbestos Abatement
Worker Protection'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 1246.13 and OMB
Control No. 2070-0072, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that
is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2017. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in
this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the
docket for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0264, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Lea
Carmichael, National Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-4689; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping for Asbestos Abatement Worker
Protection.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1246.13.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0072.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on August 31,
2017. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA's asbestos worker protection rule is designed to
provide occupational exposure protection to state and local government
employees who are engaged in asbestos abatement activities in states
that do not have state plans approved by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA). The rule provides protection for public
employees not covered by the OSHA standard from the adverse health
effects associated with occupational exposure to asbestos.
Specifically, the rule requires state and local governments to monitor
employee exposure to asbestos, take action to reduce exposure to
asbestos, monitor employee health and train employees about asbestos
hazards.
    The rule includes a number of information reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. State and local government agencies are
required to provide employees with information about exposures to
asbestos and the associated health effects. The rule also requires
state and local governments to notify EPA before commencing any
asbestos abatement project. State and local governments must maintain
medical surveillance and monitoring records and training records on
their employees, must establish a set of written procedures for
respirator programs and must maintain procedures and records of
respirator fit tests. EPA will use the information to monitor
compliance with the asbestos worker protection rule. This request
addresses these reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR 763 Subpart G). EPA will disclose information that is covered by a
claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in
accordance with, the procedures in the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) and 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.32
hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are state and local government employers in 24 states, the
District of Columbia, and certain U.S. Territories that have employees
engaged in asbestos-related construction, custodial and brake and
clutch repair activities without OSHA-approved state plans.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 23,437.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
49.9.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 372,969 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $ 15,763,007. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $ 15,763,007 and an estimated cost of $ 0 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is an overall increase of 9,452 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This change reflects an increase of 24,371 hours to
account for updates made from previous ICRs to standardize methodology
and a decrease of 14,919 hours due to Maine's new status of having an
OSHA-approved state plan whereby its entities are no longer covered
under this ICR. This change is an adjustment.

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: December 22, 2016.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2016-31821 Filed 12-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29875]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12085]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0903; Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-20]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Houston, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Houston, MO.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation
(RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Houston Memorial
Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, July 26, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 31, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for
the Houston, MO, area, creating controlled airspace at Houston Memorial
Airport (77 FR 4711) Docket No. FAA-2011-0903. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E
airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument approach
procedures at Houston Memorial Airport, Houston, MO. This action is
necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Houston Memorial Airport,
Houston, MO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Houston, MO [New]

Houston Memorial Airport, MO
    (Lat. 37[deg]19'49'' N., long. 91[deg]58'23'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.6-mile radius of Houston Memorial Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 10, 2012.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-12085 Filed 5-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


southern portion( s) does not. Ozone Report at 3 2. The suggested division( s) for ozone are not even the same as the one the commenter asserts are necessary for assessing contribution of PM2.5. Ozone Report at ES 2, PM Report at ES 1.23 This frankly appears to be more an arbitrary balkanization than a principled division. Accordingly, EPA is not accepting the commenters' arguments that contribution must be assessed on a different basis than EPA used in the rule.

E. Impact on CAIR Analyses of D. C. Circuit Decision in New contribution is 2.11 for the southern portion and 3.80 for the northern portion. Ozone Report at Table 5 2 at page 5 3. 23 The commenters' explanation for this inconsistency is that the difference " merely reflects the unsurprising reality that modeling contribution to different pollutants ( PM2.5 and ozone) yields slightly different results." FPL Group comment p. 7. 96 York v. EPA As described in the December 29, 2005 CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration, " Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone ( Clean Air Interstate Rule): Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration"

( 70 FR 77101 13), EPA decided to grant Petitioner's request that EPA reconsider the impact of New York v. EPA, 413 F. 3d 3 ( D. C. Cir. 2005) on certain analyses prepared for the final CAIR. One petitioner claimed that this June 2005 opinion of the D. C. Circuit raised questions about the sufficiency of certain analyses prepared for the CAIR.

Among other things, the opinion vacated a provision of the New Source Review ( NSR) regulations, commonly known as the pollution control project ( PCP) exclusion. The CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration explained that EPA reviewed the petition for reconsideration and analyzed the potential impact of New York v. EPA on CAIR analyses regarding cost effectiveness and timing. This analysis indicated that, as a result of the New York v. EPA decision,

some electric generating units ( EGUs) that install SO2 and/ or NOx controls for CAIR may incur relatively minor additional costs and a few such units may be subject to additional permitting requirements, but that these potential impacts will neither affect the highly cost effective 97 determination that the Agency made in CAIR nor impact the timeframe for CAIR reductions.

The CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration presented this and concluded that the potential impacts of the D. C. Circuit Decision in New York v. EPA do not alter the final highly cost effective determination made in the final CAIR and do not affect the feasibility of implementing the CAIR reductions in the required timeframe. Thus, the CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration did not propose any modifications to the final CAIR.

Today's action finalizes EPA's determination that no modifications to the final CAIR are needed to address this issue and responds to public comments received on the CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration.

1. Background on the Impact on CAIR Analyses of D. C.

Circuit Decision in New York v. EPA For background information on this issue, please refer to the CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration ( 70 FR 77103 13).

2. Additional Analysis on the Impact on CAIR Analyses of D. C. Circuit Decision in New York v. EPA Presented in the CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration The CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration presented analysis that EPA conducted to evaluate the 98 potential impact on CAIR Analyses of the D. C. Circuit Decision in New York v. EPA. The analysis first examined the potential cost and timing impacts of the decision,

assuming units would take measures to mitigate any potential significant collateral increases in emissions of NSRregulated pollutants. Then, the analysis examined the potential impact of NSR permitting on the CAIR costeffectiveness and timing analyses.

First, the analysis looked at the potential costs and timing implications of measures that could be taken to mitigate collateral emission increases and thus avoid NSR permitting. As part of the analysis, EPA made several assumptions it believes to be generally very conservative.

However, the analysis still showed that the potential impacts would neither affect the highly cost effective determination that the Agency made in the CAIR nor impact the timeframe for CAIR reductions. ( See 70 FR 77105 9).

Second, the analysis examined the potential impact of NSR permitting. It showed that, although sources installing controls for CAIR generally will have options to avoid triggering NSR for collateral increases, some sources may conduct projects that could result in a net emissions increase despite possible mitigation measures. These sources might therefore apply for and obtain the necessary 99 NSR permits to address such increase. EPA's analysis showed, however, that the impact of permitting of such sources on EPA's CAIR analyses is minimal. The Agency believes that the impacts of choosing to undertake NSR for these units are not substantial enough to affect the CAIR highly cost effective determination or the feasibility and timing analysis. ( See 70 FR 77109 11).

Overall, the analysis presented in the CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration showed that the decision to vacate the PCP exclusion under NSR does not require any modification of the final CAIR. The Notice thus did not propose any changes to the CAIR.

3. Public Comment on the CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration EPA received several comments on the Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration. 24 Most of the commenters supported the conclusions in EPA's analysis regarding the impact of the New York v. EPA decision on both the costeffectiveness analysis and timing analysis prepared for CAIR. Some commenters, however, did disagree with some aspects of the analysis that EPA performed in coming to its conclusion.

24 These documents are available in the docket for the CAIR ( EPA OAR 2003 0053). 100 One commenter, who generally agreed with EPA's conclusion that the potential impacts of D. C. Circuit Decision in New York v. EPA do not alter the final highly cost effective determination made in the final CAIR and do not affect the feasibility of implementing the CAIR reductions in the required timeframe, disagreed with several points in the supporting analysis. First, the commenter does not believe that the emissions increases associated with coal switching identified in two categories of controls in EPA's analysis would be considered in calculating collateral emission increases. While EPA agrees that in most cases coal switching would not be included in calculating collateral emission increases for a PCP, this inclusion/ exclusion is dependent upon the specific permit of the affected source. In its analysis, EPA made the conservative assumption that coal switching would be included in calculating collateral emission increases for PCPs involving SCR and/ or FGD retrofits.

In its cost effectiveness analysis, EPA also made the conservative assumptions that all EGUs that will install SCR and/ or wet FGD will experience a significant emissions increase in sulfuric acid mist and that all of those EGUs will install a wet ESP to mitigate those emissions. The commenter believes these assumptions are unrealistic. The 101 Agency agrees that these assumptions lead to an overestimate of the cost impact of the decision in New York v. EPA, since the number of EGUs with collateral increases in sulfuric acid mist will be much smaller than the universe assumed in EPA's analysis and that the BACT determinations in those cases with significant increases in sulfuric acid mist may not involve the installation of wet ESP due to its high cost. As mentioned in the CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration, historically, BACT for sulfuric acid mist at combustion sources generally has been switching to lower sulfur coal or installation of wet FGD.

The commenter argued that EPA improperly assumed that condensable emissions are regulated as a component of PM,

and suggested that EPA's analysis was flawed in this respect. It should also be noted that EPA is not taking action to change the manner in which EPA treats condensable emissions. Further, the status of condensable emissions as a regulated NSR pollutant does not change the outcome of the Agency analysis discussed here. This analysis, which assumed that sulfuric acid mist would be regulated as a component of particulates, concludes that the New York v. 102 EPA decision will not change the conclusions of the costeffectiveness and timing analyses prepared for CAIR. 26 If EPA were to assume, as the commenter suggests, that these emissions are not regulated as NSR pollutants, the conclusion of EPA's analysis would only be strengthened. 27 The same commenter also suggested that for some large EGUs burning high sulfur coal and installing wet FGD,

sulfuric acid mist emissions may exceed the NSR threshold.

While this may be true in some cases, EPA does not feel that this will undermine the conclusions of the analysis in the CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration because of the very conservative assumptions made throughout the analysis ( For purposes of its cost analysis, EPA assumed that these units installed wet ESP). It is difficult to estimate the number of such units without permit information for all units at which this may occur. Further, as mentioned in the 26 The commenter challenges these conclusions and says they only hold true if condensables are not regulated. However, the commenter offers no analysis to support this assertion or to identify any errors in EPA's analysis to support this argument.

27 The commenter further notes that it would disagree with the conclusions in EPA's analysis if it assumes condensables are regulated; however, it does not provide any analysis to demonstrate that EPA's conclusions are flawed. As explained above and in the Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration, EPA's analysis shows that, even when very conservative assumptions are made, the court decision does not alter the conclusions of the analyses supporting the CAIR. 103 CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration, much of the SO3 produced by SCR does not reach the stack; SCR conditions favor a reaction between SO3 and ammonia that produces ammonia bisulfate, which condenses to form solid PM, the majority of which will be captured in the unit's particulate control device. Thus, EPA does not feel that many such units will reach the NSR threshold for sulfuric acid mist.

Another commenter disagreed with EPA's assessment of potential collateral increases in CO from low NOx burners ( LNB). While EPA believes that installing combustion control systems can lead to collateral increases in CO,

triggering NSR, generally LNB will not significantly affect the combustion process and production of CO. It is the Agency's position that increases in CO can be minimized through adjustments of combustion control systems ( e. g.,

good combustion practices), and at this time there are no other cost effective control options for reducing CO.

Therefore, even in cases where NSR is triggered, no significant additional control costs would be incurred.

A third commenter asserts that " based upon EPA's discussion in the Reconsideration Decision, [ the commenter]

understands that only those analyses performed by EPA and described in the Reconsideration Decision are needed to assess whether a PCP undertaken for CAIR compliance would 104 increase emissions of any NSR regulated pollutant in an amount that exceeds the applicable NSR significance level.

If there are other methods or means by which EPA believes a PCP performed for CAIR compliance would trigger NSR, or if,

using EPA emission increase methodologies, EPA believes or would find that other air pollutant emissions would increase above an applicable NSR significance level as a result of PCPs that are expected to be performed for CAIR compliance,

then the Reconsideration Decision is deficient."

The analysis presented in the CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration addresses only those general categories of projects that would have qualified as PCPs under the NSR rules vacated by the court and that we believe have the potential to increase collateral emissions of NSR regulated pollutants enough to trigger NSR. It is not our intent, nor is it within the scope of our analysis, to consider at this time what permitting requirements might apply to all categories of pollution control activities ( including those that were not listed as a PCP under the NSR rules) that might be undertaken by EGUs attempting to comply with the CAIR requirements. The analysis was conducted to determine whether the elimination of the PCP exemption would impact the cost effectiveness and timing analyses for the CAIR.

Potential permitting requirements for categories of 105 activities that would not have been subject to that exemption are not relevant to that analysis. 28 On all other major points, commenters agreed with EPA's analysis, and half of the commenters also explicitly agreed with EPA's conclusion that impacts of D. C. Circuit Decision in New York v. EPA do not alter the final highly costeffective determination made in the final CAIR and do not affect the feasibility of implementing the CAIR reductions in the required timeframe. It should also be noted that other than the four commenters, no other affected parties offered problems associated with the impacts of D. C. Circuit Decision in New York v. EPA that might undermine the final CAIR cost effective determination and timing of compliance dates.

Today's action does not modify the final CAIR. In the CAIR Supplemental Notice of Reconsideration, EPA announced that it would reconsider the impact of the New York v. EPA decision on cost effectiveness and timing analyses prepared 28 The analysis addresses all relevant categories of PCPs of which EPA is currently aware. The commenter failed to identify any concrete problems that they were concerned about facing or other relevant categories of PCPs. Moreover, in addressing the relevant general categories of PCPs, EPA does not purport to make determinations about whether NSR would be triggered in any specific PCPs undertaken to comply with the CAIR, EPA will consider, and make determinations based on, the specific circumstances of those projects. 106 for the CAIR. The EPA analyzed the potential impact of the decision and solicited, considered and responded to public comment on that analysis. The EPA's analysis shows that the D. C. Circuit Decision in New York v. EPA does not significantly impact either the CAIR cost effectiveness determination or the compliance dates. For that reason, EPA has determined that modifications to the final CAIR are not warranted. The Agency believes that installation of emission controls for CAIR, as well as other programs, is extremely beneficial and is working on ways to minimize permitting issues associated with installation of these devices in a way that is consistent with the D. C. Circuit Decision in New York v. EPA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4,

1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is A significant @

and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines A significant regulatory action @

as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

( 1) have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the 107 economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,

local, or Tribal governments or communities;

( 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President =

s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action.

This notice does not promulgate any modifications to the CAIR.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not promulgate information collection request requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. Therefore, an information collection request document is not required.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,

or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review 108 instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,

validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an Agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 109 For purposes of assessing the impacts of today =

s notice on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) a small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U. S. Small Business Administration ( SBA) size standards.

( See 13 CFR part 121.); ( 2) a governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today =

s notice on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This notice does not impose any requirements on small entities. This notice does not promulgate any modifications to the CAIR. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the notice on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 110 private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with " Federal mandates" that may result in expenditures by State,

local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, UMRA section 205 generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective, or leastburdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, it must have developed, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan.

The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 111 development of EPA's regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,

educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that today's notice does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Today's notice does not add new requirements that would increase the cost of the CAIR. Thus, today's notice is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that today's notice does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them.

Therefore, today's notice is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled A Federalism @

( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure A meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.@

A Policies that have federalism implications @

is defined in 112 the Executive Order to include regulations that have A substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.@

This action does not have federalism implications. It would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, and this action would not impact that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled A Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments @

( 65 FR 67249,

November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure A meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.@ 113 For the same reasons stated in the final CAIR29,

today's notice does not have Tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, since no Tribe has implemented a federally enforceable air quality management program under the CAA at this time. Furthermore,

this action does not affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the Tribal Air Rule establish the relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and today's notice does nothing to modify that relationship. Because this notice does not have Tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply.

If one assumes a Tribe is implementing a Tribal implementation plan, the CAIR could have implications for that Tribe, but it would not impose substantial direct costs upon the Tribe, nor would it preempt Tribal Law.

Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the CAIR or this notice of final action on reconsideration of the CAIR, EPA consulted with Tribal officials in developing the CAIR.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 29 www. epa. gov/ cair. 114 Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: A Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks @

( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that ( 1) is determined to be A economically significant @

as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This notice is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. The EPA believes that the emissions reductions from the CAIR will further improve air quality and children's health.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13211 ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)

provides that agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, OMB, a 115 Statement of Energy Effects for certain actions identified as " significant energy actions." Section 4( b) of Executive Order 13211 defines " significant energy actions" as " any action by an agency ( normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of final rulemaking, and notices of final rulemaking ( 1) ( i) a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and ( ii) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or ( 2) designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a " significant energy action." The final CAIR is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and EPA concluded that the final CAIR rule may have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The impacts are detailed in the final CAIR ( 70 FR 25315). Today's notice is not a significant action under Executive Order 12866 and does not change EPA's previous conclusions.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 116 consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

Today's notice does not involve technical standards.

Therefore, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 does not apply.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations Executive Order 12898, " Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations," requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations. According to EPA guidance, 30 agencies are to assess whether minority or low

30 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA 117 income populations face risks or a rate of exposure to hazards that are significant and that " appreciably exceed or is likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or to the appropriate comparison group."

( EPA, 1998).

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, the Agency has considered whether the CAIR may have disproportionate negative impacts on minority or low income populations. The EPA expects the CAIR to lead to reductions in air pollution and exposures generally. Therefore, EPA concluded that negative impacts to these sub populations that appreciably exceed similar impacts to the general population are not expected. For the same reasons, EPA is drawing the same conclusion for today's notice to reconsider certain aspects of the CAIR.

K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United Compliance Analyses. Office of Federal Activities, Washington, D. C., April, 1998. 118 States. The EPA will submit a report containing this notice and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S.

House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the notice in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804.

L. Judicial Review Section 307( b)( 1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if ( i) the agency action consists of " nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,"

or ( ii) such action is locally or regionally applicable, if " such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination."

Final actions described in this Notice of Final Action on Reconsideration are " nationally applicable" within the meaning of section 307( b)( 1). This Notice explains the final actions EPA is taking on the petitions for 119 reconsideration of the CAIR. It describes EPA's final action on the six issues for which EPA previously granted reconsideration, and provides notice of EPA's decision to deny reconsideration of several additional issues. EPA has determined that all of these actions are of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of section 307( d)( 1) because the actions directly affect the CAIR, which previously was found to be of nationwide scope and effect. Thus, any petitions for review of the final described in this Notice must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this Notice is published in the Federal Register. 120 Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone ( Clean Air Interstate Rule): Reconsideration page 61 of 61 List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 51 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides,

Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 96 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

_______________________________

Dated ________________________________

Stephen L. Johnson Administrator 121