STANDARD FORM 83 I SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR OMB REVIEW OF ICR NO. 1951.02 INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE PAPER AND OTHER WEB COATING SOURCE CATEGORY U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711 March 14, 2002 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection.

This Supporting Statement was prepared for " Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Information Collection Request ( ICR) for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for Paper and Other Web Coating." This is a new information collection request and the tracking number is EPA ICR No. 1951.02 1( b) Short Characterization.

This Supporting Statement was prepared for a U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) rulemaking being developed under authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act ( the CAA). The final rulemaking amends title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) Subpart JJJJ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP): Paper and Other Web Coating ( hereafter, this subpart is referred to as the " POWC NESHAP"). The POWC NESHAP includes standards for major sources of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP). Respondents are owners or operators of affected sources regulated under the POWC NESHAP.

The subject ICR is for HAP emission sources in the POWC source category. This source category consists of an estimated 429 facilities nationwide. Of these facilities, 203 were estimated to be major sources subject to the provisions specified under the POWC NESHAP ( hereafter,

these sources are referred to as affected sources). An estimated 226 facilities are not major sources and will not be subject to the provisions specified under the POWC NESHAP.

All existing affected sources must be in compliance with the requirements of the POWC NESHAP within three years of the effective date ( the effective date is the promulgation date) of standards for an affected source. All new and reconstructed affected sources must be in compliance with the requirements of the POWC NESHAP on the date of startup or the effective date, whichever is later.

The analysis for this Supporting Statement included 203 POWC facilities that we anticipate will conduct all monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting ( MRR) requirements, 2 including testing activities. The annual average MRR burden per facility to conduct all MRR activities was estimated to be 94 labor hours and $ 6,639 in capital and operating and maintenance ( O& M) expenses. The 226 facilities that are not affected sources are expected to read the rule.

The estimated costs for this one activity was $ 351 per facility. Total estimated MRR costs are $ 9,363,235 for the POWC source category over the first three years of compliance activities.

Projected total capital/ startup and O& M costs over the first three years of implementation are $ 8,782,787. See Section 6 for more details.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection.

We have been directed by section 112 of the CAA to regulate the emission of HAP from stationary sources. The POWC source category contains major sources of HAP emissions and is included on our list of categories scheduled for regulation.

Section 114 of the CAA gives us authority to collect data and information necessary to enforce standards established under section 112 of the CAA. Certain records and reports are necessary to enable the Administrator to ( 1) identify existing and new paper and other web coating affected sources and ( 2) ensure that the requirements specified for an affected source are being achieved.

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data.

The information will be used by our enforcement personnel to ( 1) identify existing and new HAP emission points subject to the POWC NESHAP, ( 2) identify the emission control devices and methodologies ( e. g., product substitution and/ or reformulation) being applied, and ( 3) ensure that the emission control devices and methodologies are being properly operated and maintained on a continuous basis.

Records and reports are necessary to enable us to identify facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP that may not be in compliance. Based on reported information, we can decide whether to inspect a facility and which records or processes to inspect. The records that facilities maintain must indicate to us whether facility personnel are operating and maintaining emission control devices and methodologies properly. 3 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication.

A search of our existing standards and ongoing ICRs revealed no duplication of information gathering efforts with the exception of the following New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS): Graphic Arts Industry Publication Rotogravure Printing ( 40 CFR Part 60,

subpart QQ), Pressure Sensitive Tape and Labels ( 40 CFR Part 60, subpart RR), and Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing ( 40 CFR Part 60, subpart FFF). The NSPS and certain reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information required by the standard ( e. g., records of performance tests). In such cases, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency may be sent in lieu of, or as a part of, the report required by the POWC NESHAP.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to the Office of Management and Budget.

Since this is a rule related ICR, it was not necessary to solicit public comments prior to submittal of this Supporting Statement to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB).

3( c) Consultations.

OMB regulations require periodic consultation with respondents and data users such as members of industry, as well as State and local governments. Consultations with numerous representatives of companies involved with paper and other web coating operations were conducted throughout the NESHAP development process. Table 1 presents a list of the names,

affiliations, and telephone numbers of persons that were consulted during the rule development.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

If the requirement to submit compliance demonstrations was on a less frequent basis, we would not be reasonably assured that an affected source is in compliance with the NESHAP. In addition, our authority to take administrative action would be significantly reduced.

Section 113( d) of the CAA limits the assessment of administrative penalties to violations which occur no more than 12 months before initiation of the administrative proceeding. Since administrative proceedings are less costly and require use of fewer resources than judicial proceedings, both we and the regulated community benefit from preservation of our administrative powers. 4 Table 1. Paper and Other Web Coating Consultations NAME AFFILIATION TELEPHONE NUMBER Paul Narog 3M Company ( 612) 778 5380 Roberta Smith Allied Signal ( 804) 520 3070 Rob Kaufmann American Forest and Paper Association ( AF& PA) ( 202) 463 2588 Steve Young Association of Independent Corrugated Converters ( AICC) ( 703) 836 2422 Craig Shepard Association of Industrial Metallizers, Coaters, and Laminators ( AIMCAL) ( 803) 802 7820 Colleen Liederbach AIMCAL ( 216) 573 3773 Charles Ayres Champion International ( 203) 358 7117 Susan Young Chemical Fabrics & Film Association ( CFFA) ( 216) 241 7333 Robert Romano American Chemistry Council ( ACC) ( 703) 741 5619 Carol Niemi Chemical Manufacturers Association Solvents Council ( CMA Solvents Council) ( 517) 631 4923 Barbara Francis ACC ( 703) 741 5609 Howard Hofmeister Curwood Bemis ( 920) 303 7417 Steve Byrne Cytec ( 973) 425 8406 Loren Durfee Dow Corning Corporation ( 517) 496 8822 Raymond Coss Dow Corning Corporation ( 517) 496 4084 Mark Nuzzaco Environmental Conservation Board of Graphic Communications Industry ( EC GCI) ( 703) 648 3218 Leonardo Ceron EPA Region IV ( 404) 562 9129 Sarah Miller EPA Region V ( 312) 886 6812 Brent Marable EPA Region V ( 312) 886 6088 Janet Bowen EPA Region I ( 617) 565 3595 Mary Opfer Fibre Box Association ( FBA) ( 847) 364 9635 Table 1. Paper and Other Web Coating Consultations ( cont.)

NAME AFFILIATION TELEPHONE NUMBER 5 Mark Wygonik Flexible Packaging Association ( FPA) ( 202) 842 3880 Doreen Monteleone Flexographic Technical Association ( FTA) ( 516) 737 6026 Gary Jones Graphic Arts Technical Foundation ( GATF) ( 412) 741 6860 Greg Tyszka Gravure Association of America ( GAA) ( 716) 436 2150 Peter Mayberry Healthcare Compliance Packaging Council ( HCPC) and INDA, the Association of the Non Woven Fabric Industry ( 202) 828 2329 Chris Romaine Illinois EPA ( 217) 785 1715 Hank Naour Illinois EPA ( 217) 785 1716 Holly Evans Institute of Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits ( IPC) ( 202) 638 6219 Ed Campobenedetto Institute of Clean Air Companies ( ICAC) ( 202) 457 0911 George Carter Laminating Materials Association ( LMA) ( 201) 664 2700 Dennis Coil Lawson Mardon Packaging USA Incorporated ( 708) 649 3872 Bill Judd Madico ( 781) 756 4135 Tommy Carroll Mebane Packaging Group ( 919) 563 3516 OnSoon Berglund Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ( 612) 296 7595 John Pinkerton National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvements ( NCASI) ( 919) 558 1992 George Fuchs National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers ( NAPIM) ( 201) 288 9454 Tom Dufficy National Association of Photographic Manufacturers ( NAPM) ( 914) 698 7603 Richard Lamondier National Electrical Manufacturers Association ( NEMA) ( 703) 841 3237 John Bradfield National Particleboard Association ( NPA) ( 301) 670 0604 Table 1. Paper and Other Web Coating Consultations ( cont.)

NAME AFFILIATION TELEPHONE NUMBER 6 Bob Nelson National Paint and Coating Association ( NPCA) ( 202) 462 6272 Jennifer Griffith Northeast Waste Management Officials Association ( NEWMOA) ( 617) 367 8558 X303 Bernette Schilling NY Dept. Of Environmental Conservation ( 716) 226 2466 Peter Eberle Paperboard Packaging Council ( PBPC) ( 703) 836 3300 Nicole Miller Pressure Sensitive Tape Council ( PSTC) ( 312) 644 6610 Ann Pantle Quebcor Printing USA Corporation ( 312) 645 4600 Dale Kalina R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company ( 630) 322 6709 Alex Ross RADTECH, Incorporated ( 703) 534 9313 Gordon Miller Rexam Incorporated ( 704) 551 1549 Tracey Norberg Rubber Manufacturers Association ( RMA) ( 202) 682 4839 Matthew Maik State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators ( STAPPA) Chicago Department of the Environment ( 312) 744 7311 Dan Johnston STAPPA  Wisconsin DNR ( 608) 267 9500 Bill Franek STAPPA  Cook County, Illinois ( 708) 865 6182 Joseph Zborovsky Sun Chemical Corporation ( 201) 933 4500 X1285 Bud Gray Tag and Labels Manufacturers Institute ( TLMI) ( 630) 357 9222 Alan Davis Technical Association of Pulp and Paper Industry ( TAPPI) ( 630) 213 6559 Hector Garcia Texas Natural Resource Conservation Committee ( TNRCC) ( 512) 239 5760 Emil Studinka Wilsonart International Incorporated ( 817) 778 2711 Charlie Carter Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice ( 919) 755 2167 7 3( e) General Guidelines.

The POWC NESHAP will require owners or operators of an affected source to retain records for five years, which exceeds the three year retention period contained in the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6. The five year retention period is consistent with the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 and the retention requirement in the operating permit program under Title V of the CAA. All subsequent general guidelines have been followed and do not violate any of the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6.

3( f) Confidentiality.

All information submitted to us for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to our policies set forth in title 40, chapter I, part 2, subpart B,

Confidentiality of Business Information. See 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976;

amended by 43 FR 3999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979. Even where we have determined that data received in response to an ICR is eligible for confidential treatment under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, we may nonetheless disclose the information if it is " relevant in any proceeding" under the statute [ 42 U. S. C. 7414 ( C); 40 CFR 2.301 ( g)]. The information collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular 108.

3( g) Sensitive Questions.

Information that will be reported consists of emissions data, raw material usage and composition, and other information that are not expected to be of a sensitive nature. Therefore,

this section is not applicable.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ SIC and NAICS Codes.

Respondents are owners or operators of all existing and new HAP emitting affected sources in the POWC source category. The source category and affected sources regulated with the proposal of the POWC NESHAP are classified under the Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes for industry activities likely to conduct paper and other web coating and the corresponding North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes listed in Table 2. 8 Table 2. Paper and Other Web Coating Product Descriptions And Corresponding SIC and NAICS Codes Product Description 1987 SIC Codea Equivalent 1997 NAICS Code( s) Equivalent 1997 NAICS Product Description Corrugated and solid fiber boxes 2653 322211 Corrugated and solid fiber box manufacturing ( pt)

Folding paper board boxes, including sanitary 2657 322212 Folding paperboard box manufacturing Packaging paper and plastics film, coated and laminated 2671a Single web paper, paper multiweb laminated rolls and sheets for packaging uses 322221 Coated and laminated packaging paper and plastics film manufacturing Coated and laminated paper, not elsewhere classified 2672 322222 Coated and laminated paper manufacturing ( pt)

Plastics, foil, and coated paper bags 2673a Except all plastics 322223 Plastics, foil, and coated paper bag manufacturing Bags: uncoated paper and multiwall 2674 322224 Uncoated Paper and multiwall bag manufacturing Die cut paper and paperboard and cardboard 2675a Pasted, lined, laminated, or surface coated paperboard 322226 Surface coated paperboard manufacturing Die cut paper and paperboard products, except office supplies and pasted, lined, laminated, or surface coated paperboard 322299 All other converted paper product manufacturing ( pt)

Converted paper and paper board, not elsewhere classified 2679a Table 2. Paper and Other Web Coating Product Descriptions And Corresponding SIC and NAICS Codes ( cont.)

Product Description 1987 SIC Codea Equivalent 1997 NAICS Code( s) Equivalent 1997 NAICS Product Description 9 Wallpaper and gift wrap paper 322222 Coated and laminated paper manufacturing ( pt)

Other converted paper and paperboard products, such as paper filters, crepe paper, and laminated and tiled wallboard 322299 All other converted paper product manufacturing ( pt)

Commercial printing, gravure 2754 323111 Commercial gravure printing ( pt)

Manifold business forms 2761 323116 Manifold business forms printing ( pt)

Plastic aseptic packaging 3074 N/ A N/ A Unsupported plastics film and sheet 3081 326113 Unsupported plastics film and sheet ( except packaging) manufacturing Laminated plastics plate, sheet, and profile shapes 3083 32613 Laminated plastics plate, sheet, and shape manufacturing Abrasive products 3291 32791 Abrasive product manufacturing Laminated aluminum ( metal) foil and leaf, flexible packaging 3497a Laminated aluminum foil rolls/ sheets for flexible packaging uses 322225 Laminated aluminum foil manufacturing for flexible packaging uses a Note that some SIC codes cover multiple NAICS codes.

4( b) Information Requested.

Under the final rule, affected sources can choose between four emission limits to comply with the emission standards. These limits are 1) a limit on the amount of organic HAP applied, 2)

a limit on the mass of organic HAP applied as a percentage of the mass of coatings applied, 3) a limit on the mass of organic HAP applied as a percentage of the coating solids applied, and 4) a 10 limit on organic HAP concentration in the exhaust stream of an oxidizer. Each affected source has the choice of using, either individually or in combination, compliant coatings and add on control devices to comply with the emission standards. If the affected source chooses to use a solvent recovery add on control device and measures its performance by means of a liquid liquid material balance, then continuous emission monitoring systems ( CEMS) are required. Continuous parameter monitoring systems ( CPMS) are required for all other add on control devices. For compliant coatings, only recordkeeping is required.

As discussed in Section 1.0, it was estimated that there are 203 existing major sources that will be affected by this rule. For the purposes of the burden and cost estimates presented below,

an estimated 182 of these sources will comply through the use of add on control devices, and 23 of these will use solvent recovery systems that require the use of CEMS. The remaining 21 facilities are expected to use only compliant coatings to achieve compliance.

4( b)( i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements.

Respondents will be required to submit one time reports for the ( 1) initial notification for existing affected sources, ( 2) start of construction for new facilities, ( 3) anticipated and actual start up dates for new facilities, and ( 4) physical or operational changes to existing facilities. All records will be maintained by the facility for a period of at least five years.

An existing affected source must submit an initial notification not later than one year before the compliance date. A new affected source with an initial startup date before the promulgation date of the standards will have to submit a one time initial notification. This initial notification will have to be submitted within 120 days after the promulgation date of the standards. A new affected source with an initial startup date on or after the promulgation date of the standards will have to submit the initial notification within 120 days after becoming subject to the standards.

For affected sources constructed or reconstructed after the effective date of the relevant standard, the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 require that the source submit an application for approval of construction or reconstruction. The application is required to contain information on the air pollution control that will be used for each potential HAP emission point. 11 The information in the initial notification and the application for construction or reconstruction will enable enforcement personnel to identify the number of sources subject to, or already in compliance with, the standards.

Affected sources subject to standards under the POWC NESHAP will have to submit a semiannual notification of compliance status. This notification will have to be signed by a responsible company official who certifies its accuracy and that the affected source has complied with the relevant standards, or provide details of any deviations that have occurred during the compliance period. Performance test result summaries ( as applicable) will be included as part of the compliance status report. The notification of compliance status will have to be submitted within 30 days after the end of each calendar half.

In addition, affected sources subject to the POWC NESHAP will be required to maintain records of the following for each monthly compliance period ( including all data, calculations, test results, and other supporting information), as appropriate: 1) name, mass, and mass fraction of organic HAP for each coating and solvent material used, 2) volume fraction of coating solids in each coating material, 3) overall control efficiency for each capture system and control device,

4) continuous records of capture system and control device operating parameters, 5) each value of the monthly average as applied organic HAP content and organic HAP to coating solids ratio for each coating material, 6) organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiencies for each solvent recovery device, 7) total monthly organic HAP emitted, 8) mass of organic HAP emitted per mass of coating solids applied, 9) mass of organic HAP applied per mass of material applied,

10) monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, and 11) liquid liquid material balance calculations.

Any exceedences of allowed values will have to be reported in the semiannual compliance report.

The General Provisions require owners or operators of affected sources to develop startup, shutdown, and malfunction ( SSM) plans, documenting procedures that will be taken in the case of any of these events. Reports demonstrating the actions taken by an owner or operator in the event of a SSM are required to be submitted. These reports are required semiannually when actions taken are consistent with the plan. Immediate reports are required when actions taken are inconsistent with the plan. 12 The POWC NESHAP will require owners or operators of an affected source to retain records for five years, which exceeds the three year retention period contained in the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6. The five year retention period is consistent with the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 and the retention requirement in the operating permit program under title V of the CAA.

4( b)( ii) Respondent Activities.

The respondent activities that will be required by the POWC NESHAP during the first three years after the compliance date for existing affected sources are presented in Tables 3a through 3c. The respondent activities that will be required by the POWC NESHAP for new affected sources are presented in Tables 3d through 3f. The annual burden estimate for new affected sources is based on the assumption that there will be 18 new sources subject to the POWC NESHAP in the first three years after promulgation of standards for these source categories ( Source: E Mail Correspondence from Brooks N. Depro, Research Triangle Institute,

to Larry Sorrels, U. S. EPA, Feb, 16, 2000). It has been further assumed that these new sources will be added evenly throughout the three year period; that is, six new sources added each year.

The labor hours for and costs of MRR activities are summarized in Table 4.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities.

A list of our activities is provided in Tables 5a through 5f. Table 6 summarizes our estimated labor hours and costs. These tables are introduced in Section 6( c) of this Supporting Statement.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Information Management.

Information contained in the one time only reports will be entered into the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) Facility Subsystem ( AFS) that is maintained and operated by our Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS). Information contained in the periodic reports submitted to us will be reviewed for accuracy and completeness. Data obtained during periodic visits by our personnel from records maintained by the respondents will be tabulated and published for internal use in compliance and enforcement programs. 13 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility.

Minimizing the information collection burden for all sizes of organizations is a continuing effort on our part. We have reduced the recordkeeping and reporting requirement respondent burden to include only the information needed by us to determine compliance with the POWC NESHAP. The POWC NESHAP is applicable to only major sources.

By definition, a small business is any business that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field as defined by the Small Business Administration ( SBA) regulations under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. For the POWC source category, a small business is defined by the number of employees. For our source category, the small business threshold ranges from 500 to 750 or fewer employees, depending on SIC category. Based on available information, 51 facilities are anticipated to meet the applicable definition of a small business for the POWC source category. In addition, based on the available information on ( 1) processes and operations at these facilities and ( 2) estimated HAP emissions from HAP emission points in the POWC source category, we anticipate that these 51 facilities are likely to be major sources with respect to total facility HAP emissions.

5( d) Collection Schedule.

The initial notification is due not later than one year before the compliance date for existing affected sources. For new affected sources, it is due no later than one year after initial startup of the source. The notification of compliance status must be submitted within 60 days following completion by the affected source of the performance test specified in the rule.

Affected sources must submit periodic excess emissions summary reports with their semiannual compliance report. In addition, affected sources must submit SSM reports semiannually when actions taken in the event of a SSM are consistent with the source's SSM plan.

If actions taken are not consistent with the source's plan, an immediate report must be submitted.

6. ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 14 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden.

The existing affected source annual burden estimates for recordkeeping and reporting are presented in Tables 3a through 3c for the POWC source category. The new affected source annual burden estimates for recordkeeping and reporting are presented in Tables 3d through 3f.

The estimates of annual total technical labor hours per source and the annual number of activities per respondent listed in each table are based upon experience with similar information collection requirements in other standards development efforts and the number of emission points in each source. Activities that are one time only activities are noted in the tables.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs.

6( b)( i) Estimating Labor Costs The information collection activities for the first three years for existing and new affected sources subject to the POWC NESHAP are presented in Tables 3a through 3f. The costs of these activities were based on data from U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) Internet web site ( http:// www. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. toc. htm Table 10) accessed March 18, 2002. BLS labor rates were increased by 110% to more accurately reflect the actual labor rates of the industry.

Labor costs were divided into the following three categories ( 1) technical, ( 2) managerial, and ( 3) clerical. Managerial and clerical labor hours were calculated as 5 and 10 percent, respectively,

of each technical labor hour requirement. We estimated the cost of technical labor in the POWC source category to be $ 79 per hour, the cost of managerial labor to be $ 86/ hr, and the cost of clerical labor to be $ 36/ hr. These estimates included fringe benefits. All costs are in First Quarter 2001 dollars.

6( b)( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and O& M Costs The total annual estimated operating and maintenance costs ( O& M) were calculated based on ( 1) the estimated storage, filing, photocopying, and postage costs for the 1,477 estimated total annual responses associated with the provisions of the POWC NESHAP and ( 2) the O& M costs for the equipment required for compliance with this standard.

Storage, filing, and photocopying costs per response were estimated as 0.5 hour of administrative labor at a rate of $ 36/ hr, or $ 18 per response for multiple copies. First class postage was estimated as $ 7.40 per response for mailing of a one pound package and two half 15 pound packages to regulatory agencies. The postage rates were based on data from U. S. Postal Services Internet web site ( http:// www. usps. com/), accessed March 18, 2002. Thus, the total storage, filing, photocopying, and postage cost per response was $ 25.40, for an annual estimated total of $ 37,516.

For the majority of facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP, the only capital costs associated with MRR activities are expected to be associated with performance testing by outside parties. It is assumed that all POWC facilities using add on control devices will contract a testing company to provide sampling and analytical services required to demonstrate that control devices achieve the required emission reductions. Estimates were requested from testing firms for performance testing using EPA Method 25, including planning, setup, testing, and reporting.

Consideration of the estimates resulted in an estimated cost of $ 10,000 per performance test ( Source: Price quotation for EPA Method 25 stack test, April 17, 2000). These costs are detailed in Table 7.

For these facilities, the only continuous monitoring requirements are for parametric monitoring at facilities achieving compliance through the use of control devices and these systems are already in place, therefore no new equipment will be required by the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

It is assumed that POWC facilities using solvent recovery devices will employ CEMS to monitor their emissions. Capital/ Startup and O& M costs associated with these CEMS were estimated using EPA's CEMS Cost model, Ver. 3.0, obtained from EPA's Emission Measurement Center WWW site ( http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ emc/ cem. html). These costs are detailed in Table 7.

6( b)( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Table 7 details the Capital/ Start up and O& M costs during the implementation period.

Capital/ Startup cost items include performance testing and CEMS, while O& M costs include ongoing CEMS costs, and storage, filing, photocopying and postage costs. These costs are reflected in Box 14 of OMB Form 83 I.

6( c) Estimating the EPA's Burden and Cost. 16 Because the information collection requirements were developed as an incidental part of the POWC NESHAP, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection requirements.

Because recordkeeping and reporting requirements on the part of the respondents are required under section 112 of the CAA, no operational costs will be incurred by the Federal government. Publication and distribution of the information are part of AFS operated and maintained by our OAQPS, with the result that no Federal costs can be directly attributed to the ICR.

Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of affected sources. Periodic inspections are part of our overall compliance and enforcement program. Therefore, these examinations are not attributable to the ICR. The only costs that the Federal government will incur are user costs associated with the analysis of the reported information. Labor rates and associated costs are based on the 2001 General Schedule ( GS) base annual salary data from Federal Personnel Guide Internet web site ( http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ payrates/), accessed March 19, 2002. We estimated an average hourly labor cost of $ 65 for managerial staff ( GS  15/ 3), $ 40 for technical staff ( GS  12/ 3), and $ 20 for administrative/ clerical staff ( GS  6/ 3). To derive hourly estimates, we divided annual compensation estimates by 2,080 which is the number of hours in the Federal work year. We then multiplied hourly rates by the standard government benefits multiplication factor of 1.6 for 60 percent overhead expenses.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Cost.

There are a total of 429 existing sources that will respond to the rule, and an estimated 6 new sources per year that will respond to the rule, for an annual average of 441 respondents ( 429 + 12, the number of new sources in year 2). As described in Section 1b of this Supporting Statement, 226 of the 429 existing facilities are non major and will only read the rule. Tables 3a f detail the annual responses and the number of respondents performing them, with totals listed in Table 7 ( under " Storage, filing, photocopying, & postage"). The annual average number of responses is 1,405 for existing affected sources and 72 for new affected sources, giving a total annual average number of responses of 1,477. 17 The total annual labor hours are 41,462. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Tables 3a f: Industry Burden, and Table 4: Summary of Source Category Burden.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs/ Master Tables.

6( e)( i) Respondent Tally.

The bottom line respondent burden hours and costs were calculated by adding total labor hours and costs as detailed in Tables 3a f and summarized in Table 4.

The estimated total nationwide burden for affected sources in the first three years of the POWC NESHAP will be an estimated 38,708 total labor hours per year at a cost of $ 2,914,796 per year for existing affected sources and 2,754 total labor hours per year at a cost of $ 206,283 per year for new affected sources. The total estimated annual labor hour reporting and recordkeeping burden is 41,462 labor hours per year at a cost of $ 3,121,078 per year, presented in Box 13 of OMB Form 83 I.

6( e)( ii) The EPA Tally.

The bottom line Federal government burden hours and costs that will result from this ICR are presented in Tables 5a through 5c for existing affected sources and Tables 5d through 5f for new affected sources. Table 6 summarizes the Federal government burden labor hours and costs for the POWC NESHAP.

The estimated total annual EPA labor hours and costs of the POWC NESHAP for existing affected sources in the POWC source category for the first three years of compliance activities are 11,538 total labor hours at a cost of $ 953,354. The estimated total annual EPA labor hours and costs of the POWC NESHAP for new affected sources in the POWC source category for the first three years of compliance activities are 787 total labor hours at a cost of $ 62,926. The total estimated Federal government burden is 12,325 labor hours per year at a cost of $ 1,016,280 per year.

6( e)( iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line.

Variation in the annual bottom line for this regulation may occur ( 1) due to the fact that certain one time activities will typically occur in the first year following promulgation of the rule 18 and ( 2) by the third year following promulgation of the rule, when all affected sources must be in compliance, and will therefore be subject to recurring recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden.

This section does not apply because this is a new collection.

6( g) Burden Statement.

The respondent universe consists of 429 existing paper and other web coating facilities and 18 new facilities ( 6 per year during the three year period covered by this analysis), for an annual average of 441 affected facilities. The total burden hours and costs for these facilities are presented in Tables 3a f. Capital/ startup and O& M costs are detailed in Table 7.

The total three year monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden for this collection is estimated at 124,385 labor hours, and the annual average burden is 41,462 labor hours. Based on the annual average of 441 respondents, the average burden per respondent is 94 hours per year.

The total capital/ startup and O& M cost is estimated to be $ 8,782,797 over three years, averaging $ 2,927,599 per year or $ 6,639 per respondent ( based on an annual average of 441 respondents).

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 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 are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information ( OEI), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Mail Code 2822, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460 0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB Control Number in any correspondence. 20 PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT Not applicable. No sampling or other methods are used to select respondents because all owners and operators of facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP are required to collect information.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64495-64496]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25439]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Staff Attendance at Southwest Power Pool Regional
Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee and Board of Directors
Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the
Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) Regional Entity Trustee (RE), Regional
State Committee (RSC) and Board of Directors, as noted below. Their
attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
    All meetings will be held at the SPP Corporate Offices, 201 Worthen
Drive, Little Rock, AR 722111. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SPP RE

    October 28, 2013 (8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.)

SPP RSC

    October 28, 2013 (1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.)

SPP Board of Directors

    October 29, 2013 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.)
    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

Docket No. ER06-451, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-4105, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-140, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-550, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-909, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1017, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1018, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1179, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1401, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1586, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1779, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2292, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2366, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-2, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-47, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-51, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-60, Southwest Power Pool, Inc., et al.
Docket No. ER12-1813, The Empire District Electric Co.
Docket No. ER12-1071, Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-59, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-548, ITC Great Plains, LLC
Docket No. ER12-480, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.

Docket No. EL11-34, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER09-36, Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC
Docket No. ER09-35, Tallgrass Transmission, LLC
Docket No. EL12-28, Xcel Energy Services Inc., et al.
Docket No. EL13-15, Southwestern Public Service Company
Docket No. EL13-35, Southwestern Public Service Company
Docket No. ER13-366, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-367, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No, ER13-1032, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1173, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1768, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1769, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1819, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1937, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1939, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2031, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2033, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2270, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2271, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2272, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2274, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2275, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2276, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2281, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2282, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2284, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2335, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2358, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2359, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2430, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2433, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2438, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2439, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-2440, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-27, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-60, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-67, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 22, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-25439 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51788-51794]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24344]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505; FRL-9970-55-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT59

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this
notice of data availability (NODA) in support of the proposed rule
titled ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements,''
which was published on June 16, 2017. In this document, the EPA is
providing additional information on several topics raised by
stakeholders and is soliciting comment on the information presented.
The two topic areas are the legal authority to issue a stay and the
technological, resource, and economic challenges with implementing the
fugitive emissions requirements, well site pneumatic pump standards,
and the requirements for certification of closed vent systems by a
professional engineer. This notice also provides an updated cost
savings and forgone benefits analysis for the 2-year stay.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0505, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter Tsirigotis, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (D205-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of This Document. The information presented in this
document is organized as follows:

I. Background
II. Legal Authority
III. Stakeholder Input on Sources' Ability To Implement Requirements
    A. Fugitive Emissions Requirements
    B. Well Site Pneumatic Pump Requirements
    C. Professional Engineering Certification Requirements
IV. Estimated Cost Savings, Forgone Benefits, and Net Benefits of
the Proposed Stay

I. Background

    On June 16, 2017, the EPA proposed to stay for 2 years certain
requirements that are contained within the final rule titled ``Oil and
Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and
Modified Sources,'' published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 35824,
June 3, 2016 (2016 Rule). This action proposed to stay the fugitive
emissions requirements, the well site pneumatic pump requirements, and
the requirements for certification of closed vent systems by a
professional engineer for 2 years, in order to provide the EPA with
sufficient time to propose, take public comment on, and issue a final
action on the issues concerning the specific requirements on which the
EPA has granted reconsideration. 82 FR 27645, June 16, 2017. While the
proposed 2-year stay was based on the time needed to complete a
rulemaking to address the issues for which we have granted
reconsideration, during this time, the EPA plans to also address all
remaining issues raised in these reconsideration petitions regarding
fugitive emissions, pneumatic pumps, and certification by professional
engineer requirements. The EPA believes that addressing all issues
related to these requirements would provide the regulated entities and
the general public clarity and certainty regarding these requirements.
    Subsequent to the 82 FR 27645, June 16, 2017, proposal, the Agency
has heard a broad range of questions, concerns, and constructive
suggestions from stakeholders on how the proposed rule could be
improved. This document is not intended to address all of the issues
that have been raised; we will summarize and respond to all comments in
the final rule. Rather, the purpose of this document is to describe and
seek comment on several ideas raised by stakeholders that may go beyond
those for which the Agency sought comment in the June 16, 2017,
proposal. In this document, we describe the specific issues and ideas
raised by stakeholders and explain which of those ideas we consider to
be within or possibly beyond the scope of comment already requested.
The purpose of this document is to bring these ideas to the attention
of other stakeholders and the public so that they may also provide
comments to assist in developing a final rule.
    The feedback the EPA has received since proposing the stay relates
to the EPA's legal authority to stay these requirements and lack of
clarity and other challenges in implementing these three requirements.
With respect to the implementation challenges, the commenters
recommend, as an alternative to the proposed stay, that the EPA amend
the 2016 Rule to extend the periods currently provided in the 2016 Rule
for establishing the necessary infrastructure and phasing in the
requirements for conducting the initial monitoring survey of fugitive
emissions

and for routing well site pneumatic pump emissions to onsite controls
or processes. The feedback similarly suggests the need for a phase-in
period to allow a scale-up of the number of qualified professional
engineers to meet the demand imposed by the 2016 Rule. The EPA is
soliciting comments on this recommendation. Specifically, the EPA is
soliciting relevant data and information, in particular those related
to the EPA's analyses and assumptions that were used to establish the
phase-in periods in the 2016 Rule, to help inform the EPA why the
appropriate duration of these periods may have been underestimated, as
the feedback suggests. Further, with respect to the requirement for
certification of closed vent systems by a professional engineer, while
in the preamble to the 2015 proposed New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) the EPA had suggested such certification as a potential remedy
where a storage vessel is improperly designed,\1\ the final 2016 Rule
requires such certification for demonstrating compliance with not only
the storage vessel emission standards, but a number of other emission
standards, thereby affecting a large number of affected sources.\2\
According to the feedback received, the immediate high demand for
qualified professional engineers to meet this certification requirement
has made implementation of this requirement quite challenging. In light
of the feedback, the EPA is soliciting comments, data, and any other
information that would help the EPA determine whether a phase-in period
for this requirement is needed and, if so, the length of such period.
While the comment period on the June 16, 2017, proposal closed on
August 9, 2017, comments on this action may include further commentary
on statements made in the proposed 2-year stay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 56649, September 18, 2015.
    \2\ 40 CFR 60.5411a(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action also provides an updated cost analysis for the 2-year
stay, which reflects a revised time frame, as well as corrects a
technical error in the initial analysis. This correction results in a
slight increase in cost savings associated with the proposed 2-year
stay. The EPA has also updated this analysis to include forgone
benefits and net benefits from the proposed 2-year stay. For more
information, see section IV of this document.

II. Legal Authority

    The EPA received comments from stakeholders on our legal authority
to stay these requirements or otherwise amend the 2016 Rule to extend
the ``phase-in'' periods currently provided in that rule. See Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-10577. Specifically, noting that these
requirements are not mandated by Clean Air Act (CAA) section
111(b)(1)(B), the commenter interprets CAA section 111 as authorizing
the EPA to extend compliance deadlines or establish future compliance
dates. The commenter also cites section 705 of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) to provide the EPA authority to stay these
requirements pending judicial review. The commenter interprets the term
``postpone'' in section 705 of the APA to include ``delay, defer,
adjourn, shelve, table, and put on hold.'' Id. at 7. Lastly, the
commenter argues that the EPA's general rulemaking authority under
section 301(a) of the CAA authorizes a rulemaking staying these
requirements because ``Congress has not written a `clear impediment to
the issuance' '' of such stay. Id. at 12 (citations omitted). The EPA
solicits comments on these legal theories provided in this comment
document. See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-10577.
    For the reasons stated below, the EPA has legal authority to amend
the 2016 Rule to either stay certain provisions or otherwise revise
certain aspects of the rule. The EPA promulgated the 2016 Rule pursuant
to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA in accordance with the notice-and-
comment rulemaking procedures under section 307(d) of the CAA. 81 FR
35828. The EPA is using the same statutory authority and following the
same procedures in the present rulemaking to amend the 2016 Rule to
stay certain requirements (as described in the June 16, 2017, proposal)
or make the suggested changes to aspects of these requirements as
described in this action (i.e., extension or provision of ``phase-in''
periods). In addition, section 301(a) of the CAA provides the Agency
with broad authority to prescribe regulations, including revisions to
prior rulemakings, as necessary to carry out the Administrator's
authorized functions under the statute. ``The power to decide in the
first instance carries with it the power to reconsider.'' Trujillo v.
Gen. Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir. 1980); see also, United
Gas Improvement Co. v. Callery Properties, Inc., 382 U.S. 223, 229
(1965); Mazaleski v. Treusdell, 562 F.2d 701, 720 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
    Section 111 of the CAA requires the EPA to list a source category
under that section if, ``in [the EPA Administrator's] judgment it
causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' Once
a source category is listed, CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires that the
EPA promulgate ``standards of performance'' for new sources in such
source category. In addition, CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA
to ``at least every 8 years review and, if appropriate, revise''
performance standards unless the ``Administrator determines that such
review is not appropriate in light of readily available information on
the efficacy'' of the standard. In 1979, the EPA published a list of
source categories, including Oil and Natural Gas, under section 111(b)
of the CAA. See Priority List and Additions to the List of Categories
of Stationary Sources, 44 FR 49222 (August 21, 1979) (``1979 Priority
List''). In 1985, the EPA promulgated NSPS for this source category
that addressed volatile organic compound(s) (VOC) emissions from
leaking components at onshore natural gas processing plants (40 CFR
part 60, subpart LLL) and sulfur dioxide emissions from natural gas
processing plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK). In 2012, the EPA
conducted its required review under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), and
promulgated NSPS subpart OOOO, which included updates to subparts KKK
and LLL standards as well as additional VOC standards for this source
category.
    In addition to the mandatory obligations described above, the EPA
has discretion under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) to add new standards of
performance for additional pollutants or emission sources not
previously covered concurrent with, or independent of, the 8-year
review. Pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, the EPA has
promulgated new performance standards for previously unregulated
sources concurrent with the 8-year review. See, e.g., 71 FR 9866
(February 27, 2006) (new particular matter standards for boilers); 73
FR 35838 (June 24, 2008) (new nitrogen oxide standards for additional
sources at refineries); 77 FR 49490 (August 16, 2012) (new VOC
standards for additional sources at oil and gas facilities). However,
the appropriate time for promulgating such new standards may not always
align with the 8-year review cycle. See, e.g., 73 FR 35838, 35859. (The
EPA did not promulgate performance standards for greenhouse gas
emissions as part of the 8-year review of the NSPS for refineries
because the Agency was still in the process of gathering information
and reviewing controls.) While the EPA could conduct the required
periodic review sooner than every 8 years, which

would potentially allow the EPA to conduct the review and set
additional standards concurrently, the EPA does not believe that the
schedule for the statutorily required review should be driven by the
timing for promulgating additional performance standards that are
discretionary. On the other hand, there is no reason that the EPA's
authority and discretion to promulgate such standards should be
constrained by the timing of the 8-year review. The EPA, therefore,
reasonably interprets CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) to allow the Agency to
exercise its discretion to promulgate new performance standards for
additional sources or pollutants when appropriate (concurrent with or
independent of the 8-year review).
    Pursuant to this authority under section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA,
the EPA promulgated the 2016 Rule which contained, among other things,
a number of new performance standards for emission sources not
previously covered, including the fugitive emissions components at well
sites and compressor stations, as well as pneumatic pumps at well
sites.\3\ The EPA promulgated the fugitive emissions requirements for
well sites and compressor stations pursuant to section 111(h) of the
CAA, which authorizes the EPA to set a design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard where it is not technically feasible
to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. 80 FR 56593, 56637
(September 18, 2015). A work practice standard generally consists of a
set of activities that sources must perform and a time period for
completing the activities. See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.632 (180 days from
initial startup to comply with the requirements to detect and repair
leaks at onshore oil and natural gas processing plants). Similar to
existing work practice standards, the fugitive emissions requirements
in the 2016 Rule specify a set of activities (e.g., developing an
emission monitoring plan, conducting initial and subsequent surveys,
repair or replacement, and resurvey of fugitive emissions components
according to the plan) and time frames for performing the activities.
40 CFR 60.5397a. Specifically, the 2016 Rule specifies a period of time
(i.e., until June 3, 2017, or 60 days after starting up production,
whichever is later) for sources to establish the necessary
infrastructure, develop a monitoring plan, secure the required
personnel and equipment, and conduct the initial monitoring survey of
fugitive emissions components at well sites and compressor stations. 81
FR 35858-9 and 35863, June 3, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 2016 Rule also includes standards for reducing methane
emissions from the oil and natural gas sector, as well as revisions
to the previously promulgated Oil and Natural Gas NSPS (40 CFR part
60, subpart OOOO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 Rule similarly did not establish an emission limit for
well site pneumatic pumps, but instead requires that emissions from
well site pneumatic pumps be routed to an available control or process
onsite, unless a qualified professional engineer certifies that it is
not technically feasible to do so. As with the fugitive emissions
requirements, the 2016 Rule similarly provided a period of time (until
November 30, 2016) for owners and operators to conduct the ground work
required for routing well site pneumatic pumps to an available onsite
control or process (or, if it is not technically feasible to do so, for
obtaining a certification by a qualified engineer of the technical
infeasibility). 81 FR 35859, June 3, 2016.
    The 2016 Rule also added a requirement that all closed vent systems
routing emissions from storage vessels, compressors, and pneumatic pump
affected facilities be certified by a qualified professional engineer.
This certification requirement is not an emission standard under CAA
section 111(a)(1) or a design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standard under CAA section 111(h); it is a compliance measure that
would provide additional assurance that sources are meeting the
emission standards for storage vessels, compressors, and pneumatic
pumps. Some of these emission standards, such as those for storage
vessels and compressors, were promulgated in 2012 under section
111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA.
    Through the June 16, 2017, action, the EPA is proposing to amend
the 2016 Rule to stay the fugitive emissions requirements, the well
site pneumatic pump requirements, and the certification requirement
described above. Since then, the EPA has received suggestions that,
instead of staying these requirements, the EPA extend the current
phase-in periods for the fugitive emissions requirements and well site
pneumatic pump requirements, as well as providing one for the
requirement for certification of closed vent systems by a professional
engineer. Agencies have inherent authority to reconsider past decisions
and to revise, replace, or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by
law and supported by a reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox Television
Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v.
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983) (``State
Farm''). This includes a decision regarding the appropriate length of
the phase-in periods provided in the 2016 Rule for specific
requirements, as well as whether to provide one for phasing in an
additional compliance assurance measure, or whether to stay these three
requirements at issue while they are being revised through rulemaking.
    Section 301(a) of the CAA provides the EPA with broad rulemaking
authority to carry out the CAA. Notwithstanding the potential
constraint that other parts of the CAA may have on the EPA's authority
to stay a rule pursuant to CAA section 301(a), see Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. v. Reilly, 976 F.2d 36, 41 (D.C. Cir. 1992),
there is no such constraint here with respect to staying the fugitive
emissions requirements, the well site pneumatic pump requirements, and
the certification requirement in the 2016 Rule, the promulgation of
which was discretionary and not compelled by CAA section 111(b)(1)(B).
In a case analyzing a similar general rulemaking authority granted to
the Federal Reserve Board by the Truth in Lending Act, the Supreme
Court held quite broadly that, where ``the empowering provision of a
statute states simply that an agency may make such rules and
regulations as necessary to carry out the provisions of an act, the
validity of a regulation promulgated thereunder will be sustained so
long as it is `reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling
legislation.' '' Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 411
U.S. 356, 369 (1973) (quoting Thorpe v. Housing Authority of City of
Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 280-81 (1969)). In a CAA section 301(a) case, the
District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals held that CAA section
301(a) authorizes the EPA to use rulemaking to issue the enhanced
vehicle inspection and maintenance programs guidance under section 182
of the CAA. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C.
Cir. 1994). Noting the absence of any provision in CAA section 182
preventing issuing such guidance through rulemaking, the Court deferred
to the Agency's determination that the regulation was necessary as long
as it provided a reasoned explanation. Id. at 1148.
    The EPA's proposed stay, as well as the stakeholder-suggested
extension or provision of ``phase-in'' periods for the three
requirements at issue, is consistent with the purposes of the CAA and,
therefore, authorized under section 301(a) of the CAA. The EPA
promulgated these requirements for purposes of achieving meaningful
emission reductions under the regulatory schemes established in the
2016 Rule to complement other emission reduction efforts and address

certain challenges (e.g., technical infeasibility and time needed for
building up for necessary equipment and trained personnel). For
instance, the EPA promulgated both the fugitive emissions requirements
and a process for applying and obtaining an alternative means of
emissions limitations (AMEL) with the clear intent to achieve emission
reductions from currently uncontrolled sources while still allowing
sources subject to effective existing state fugitive emissions programs
an avenue to continue implementing such programs, as well as to
encourage the use of innovative technology. Therefore, in promulgating
the fugitive emissions requirements, the EPA clearly intended and
anticipated the implementation of alternatives in lieu of such
requirements. However, stakeholders indicated that this purpose of the
2016 Rule was frustrated by the fact that the current AMEL provisions
are not sufficiently clear to allow sources to take advantage of them.
Stakeholders suggested that further revision or clarification would be
required before sources can apply and obtain approval to use an
innovative technology or implement their current state program in lieu
of the 2016 Rule requirements. The EPA received input from stakeholders
stating that without staying the fugitive emissions requirements
pending the EPA's reconsideration, the regulated entities would incur
significant and potentially unnecessary additional costs and compliance
burden to implement the 2016 Rule, and, in some cases, at the expense
of disrupting or complicating compliance with applicable state
programs, just to later revert back to what they were doing in the
first place. These were the consequences that the EPA sought to avoid
by promulgating the AMEL in the 2016 Rule. While not all states have
fugitive emissions programs, considering that many states with high oil
and gas production do have such programs in place,\4\ it is not clear
that the marginal additional emission reductions achieved during the
EPA's reconsideration process outweigh the potential disruption to
existing state programs and company-specific programs. In light of the
discussion above, the EPA believes that the proposed stay of the
fugitive emission requirements pending its reconsideration process is
reasonable and authorized under sections 111 and 301 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Including California, Colorado, North Dakota, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the well site pneumatic pump requirements, the 2016
Rule acknowledges that routing the pneumatic pump emissions to an
available onsite control or process may not always be technically
feasible and, therefore, provides a technical infeasibility exemption
for such routing except for pneumatic pumps located at a ``greenfield
site.'' However, some sources could not tell based on the 2016 Rule
definition of ``greenfield site,'' which was not proposed for notice
and comment, whether they are ``greenfield sites,'' even though they
are encountering technical infeasibility, and, therefore, risk being in
noncompliance. Delaying these requirements until the EPA resolves this
potential problem through its reconsideration process is consistent
with the 2016 Rule to require emission reductions from well site
pneumatic pumps only where it is technically feasible to do so.
    Lastly, as mentioned above, the closed vent certification by
professional engineer requirement is a compliance measure included in
the 2016 Rule to provide additional assurance that sources are meeting
the emission standards for a wide range of equipment, some of which
have been in place since 2012. The EPA granted reconsideration of this
requirement because the EPA had not considered its cost and whether the
additional assurance justifies such expenditure. The EPA's proposed
stay while conducting this evaluation is clearly consistent with
section 111 of the CAA, which expressly identifies cost as a factor for
consideration when promulgating emission standards. See CAA section
111(a)(1).
    For the reasons stated above, both the proposed stay and the
suggestion by stakeholders to extend (or provide) the phase-in periods
are lawful exercises of the EPA's statutory authority and discretion
under the CAA. The EPA solicits comment on the EPA's legal authorities
for taking these actions. In addition, as mentioned above, the EPA
solicits comment on stakeholder input \5\ on the EPA's legal
authorities to take these actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, for example, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-10577
and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Stakeholder Input on Sources' Ability To Implement Requirements

    In the June 16, 2017, proposal, the EPA explained that it is
proposing to stay the requirements at issue pending reconsideration due
to its concern that sources should not be compelled to comply with
these requirements pending the EPA's reconsideration of issues
associated with these requirements, as these issues impact the ability
of a wide range of sources to achieve and show compliance with their
applicable standards. 82 FR 27646-8, June 16, 2017. In that action, the
EPA proposed to amend the 2016 Rule by staying these requirements
pending reconsideration.
    Since proposing to stay the requirements pending reconsideration,
the EPA received feedback from some stakeholders indicating that there
are additional issues affecting sources' ability to implement the above
mentioned requirements besides those for which the EPA has granted
reconsideration.\6\ Some stakeholders suggested that the EPA should
amend the 2016 Rule by extending the ``phase-in'' periods provided in
the 2016 Rule for a build-up of the number of trained personnel (i.e.,
certified monitoring survey contractors, qualified professional
engineers) and equipment (i.e., monitoring instruments) required to
meet the demand imposed by the fugitive emissions requirements and the
well site pneumatic pump requirements. The EPA anticipated that during
these periods, ``sources will begin to phase in these requirements as
additional devices and personnel become available.'' 81 FR 35859 and
35863, June 3, 2016. We solicit comment on the suggestion that these
periods be extended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, for example, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-11108
and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some stakeholders suggested that these concerns may also exist with
respect to other provisions requiring professional engineer
certifications. The EPA solicits comment on whether to similarly
provide a phase-in period to allow a scale-up of the number of
qualified professional engineers to meet the demand imposed by the 2016
Rule, which requires certification by such professionals of (1) the
closed vent systems routing emissions from various equipment and (2)
technical infeasibility of routing emissions from a well site pneumatic
pump to an existing control device or process onsite. The EPA
additionally solicits comment on the length of the phase-in period
necessary in order to achieve this scale-up.
    As mentioned above, the EPA previously anticipated that some of
these issues might be present for a more limited period and, therefore,
provided in the 2016 Rule a ``phase-in'' period for both the fugitive
emissions requirements and the pneumatic pump requirements. 81 FR
35851, 35858-9, 35863, June 3, 2016. Specifically, in

regards to the fugitive emissions requirements, in light of the large
number of sources, the EPA concluded that time was needed to allow an
increase in production of the required equipment and scale-up of
trained personnel, as well as for sources to establish the groundwork
and secure the necessary monitoring equipment and personnel. The 2016
Rule, therefore, provided a ``phase-in'' period by allowing sources to
conduct initial monitoring by June 3, 2017, or within 60 days after
production starts, whichever is later. 81 FR 35858-9, 35863, June 3,
2016. Some stakeholders suggested that some sources continue to have
difficulty securing the necessary equipment and/or personnel to conduct
the required monitoring survey of fugitive emissions. For a similar
reason, the 2016 Rule provided a phase-in period until November 30,
2016, to connect well site pneumatic pumps to an existing control or
process onsite. 81 FR 35851, June 3, 2016.
    However, some stakeholders suggested that the time provided in the
2016 Rule may not have been adequate to accommodate the number of
affected sources subject to these requirements. In addition, some
stakeholders indicated that sources that must now comply with these
requirements upon startup may be particularly affected by these
challenges. Therefore, the EPA solicits comment and information on
these challenges that sources are experiencing in carrying out these
requirements. Further, the EPA is soliciting comment on whether, in
light of the numerous ongoing compliance issues, the EPA should amend
the above mentioned phase-in periods in the 2016 Rule instead of simply
staying the requirements. The EPA additionally is soliciting comment on
the appropriate length of a phase-in period to address the challenges
sources are experiencing in carrying out the requirements in the 2016
Rule. A stay would mean that sources do not have to comply while the
stay is in place. It would not, however, change any dates in the 2016
Rule. This could create some uncertainty for sources regarding their
obligations upon expiration of the stay. A change to the phase-in
periods (or the addition of such a period where the rule does not
currently provide one) could provide greater certainty to sources.
    Some stakeholders suggested that the challenges regarding acquiring
necessary equipment and trained personnel may also exist with respect
to the requirement of certification of closed vent systems by a
professional engineer. We note that the 2016 Rule does not have a
phase-in period associated with the closed vent system certification by
professional engineer requirement, which must be met by a wide range of
sources (i.e., storage vessels, compressors, and pneumatic pumps), even
though the EPA acknowledged that securing such professional engineer
certification may take time. 81 FR 35851, June 3, 2016. The EPA,
therefore, solicits comment on whether time (and how much) should be
provided to allow a further building up of the number of professional
engineers experienced in these requirements to meet the demand posed by
this certification requirement.
    As mentioned above, the EPA solicits comment on the appropriate
length of time needed to address the challenges sources are
experiencing in carrying out these requirements in the 2016 Rule and
the suggestion to extend the ``phase-in'' periods established in the
2016 Rule for the fugitive emissions requirements and the well site
pneumatic pump requirements, as well as the suggestion to provide a
phase-in period for the requirement for certification of closed vent
systems by a professional engineer.

A. Fugitive Emissions Requirements

    The EPA proposed to stay for 2 years the fugitive emissions
requirements at well sites and compressor stations while it reconsiders
the process and criteria for requesting and receiving approval for the
use of an AMEL and the applicability of the fugitive emissions
requirements to low production well sites. 82 FR 27646, June 16, 2017.
These issues determine the universe of sources that must implement the
fugitive emissions requirements. Id. The EPA has received feedback from
some stakeholders that securing certified monitoring survey contractors
and monitoring instruments has been more difficult than predicted, and,
therefore, the EPA is soliciting comment on the availability of
contractors and monitoring instruments, and the impact on owners and
operators complying with the requirements of the 2016 Rule. The EPA is
soliciting comment on extending the phase-in period and the appropriate
length of the phase-in period to allow for an adequate build-up of the
personnel and equipment required for meeting the fugitive emissions
requirements. Specifically, the EPA solicits comment on whether the
impact of this requirement and any feasibility issues are relevant to
few sources or a systemic issue related to many sources.
    The EPA also received feedback regarding the applicability of the
fugitive emissions requirements to third-party equipment at well sites
which is ancillary to production (e.g., equipment such as meters owned
by midstream operators). The 2016 Rule requires that all fugitive
emissions components at a well site be monitored and repaired, but
there has been confusion as to the appropriate scope of components that
are included in the definition of the well site for the fugitive
emissions requirements. During the public comment period on the 2016
Rule, the EPA received feedback that ancillary midstream assets (e.g.,
meters) should be excluded from the fugitive emissions requirements
because they are owned by legally distinct companies from the well site
owner and operator and could have limited emissions.\7\ The EPA's
response to this comment was to state in its Response to Comments that
``the resolution for any leaking components identified during surveys
can be managed by the operator through cooperative agreements with
other potential owners at the site.'' \8\ The EPA has since received
feedback that there are complicated site configurations and contractual
arrangements that the EPA did not consider in the 2016 Rule that could
prevent compliance, including situations where the third-party
equipment could be made subject to the 2016 Rule based on actions made
by another operator.\9\ The EPA is soliciting comment on this feedback,
specifically, legal and logistical issues that could prevent midstream
operators, or other operators of ancillary third-party equipment, from
compliance with the 2016 Rule, and suggestions for addressing this
issue. The EPA additionally solicits comment on the number of contracts
that would need to be renegotiated and associated burden. The EPA is
further soliciting comment on whether, in light of the above, the EPA
should stay or otherwise extend the phase-in period as it applies to
third-party equipment on well sites until after the EPA has addressed
this compliance issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7237.
    \8\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7632, p. 4-282.
    \9\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12245 and Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0346-0328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA additionally received feedback regarding technical, safety,
and environmental issues associated with the delay of repair provisions
in the 2016 Rule. The EPA proposed that if ``repair or replacement [of
a leaking fugitive emissions component] is technically infeasible or
unsafe to repair during operation of the unit, the repair or
replacement must be completed during the next scheduled shutdown or

within 6 months, whichever is earlier.'' 80 FR 56668, September 18,
2015. Stakeholders responded with concerns about ``delays lasting
longer than six months due to availability of supplies needed to
complete repairs and information regarding the frequency of delayed
repairs. Some commenters also indicated that in some cases, requiring
prompt repairs could lead to more emissions than if repairs were able
to be delayed, for example if a well shut-in or vent blow-down is
required.'' 81 FR 35858, June 3, 2016. In response to these comments,
the EPA extended the time a component can be placed on delay of repair
from 6 months to 2 years, and, in conjunction with this extension,
added that ``however, if an unscheduled or emergency vent blowdown,
compressor station shutdown, well shutdown, or well shut-in occurs
during the delay of repair period, the fugitive emissions components
would need to be fixed at that time.'' Id.
    Since publication of the 2016 Rule, the EPA has received feedback
that requiring repair or replacement of fugitive emissions components
during unscheduled or emergency vent blowdowns could result in natural
gas supply disruptions, safety concerns, and increased emissions.\10\
In particular, stakeholder feedback suggests that compliance with this
provision could result in prolonged shutdowns impacting natural gas
supply if necessary parts and skilled labor is unavailable, and
avoidable blowdowns resulting in greater emissions than the leaking
component.\11\ This feedback additionally indicates that these events
may not necessarily result in the blowdown of all equipment located
onsite and, thus, the equipment needing repair may not have been
affected by the blowdown.12 13 The EPA is soliciting comment
on this feedback, specifically, the shutdown, shut-in, or blowdown
scenarios that result in the technical, safety, and environmental
issues described, and suggestions for addressing these issues. The EPA
is further soliciting comment on whether, in light of the above, the
EPA should stay or otherwise extend the phase-in period as it applies
to equipment requiring delay of repair at well sites and compressor
stations until after the EPA has addressed this compliance issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0346-0328 and Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-12245.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Blowdown refers to the release of entrained gas from
equipment that causes a reduction in system pressure or a complete
depressurization. For example, a blowdown may occur to reduce line
pressure and discharge gas to ensure safe working conditions during
maintenance and repair activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Well Site Pneumatic Pump Requirements

    The EPA proposed to stay for 2 years the requirements for well site
pneumatic pump standards while it reconsiders the technical
infeasibility exemption and the definition of ``greenfield site.'' 82
FR 27647, June 16, 2017. The EPA acknowledges that the technical
infeasibility exemption that the EPA finalized in the 2016 Rule adopted
a different approach than previously applied to the oil and gas
industry and created an unanticipated and unnoticed distinction between
``greenfield'' (new development) and ``non-greenfield'' sites. For a
discussion on the technical infeasibility exemption provided in the
2016 Rule, please see 81 FR 35844-5, June 3, 2016. Some stakeholders
have suggested that this distinction has caused confusion among owners
and operators on what sites qualify for the technical infeasibility
exemption. The EPA received stakeholder feedback that some owners and
operators may have been unintentionally restricted in the design of new
sites that, for technical reasons, could not employ controls or
processes for certain pneumatic pump installations. The EPA is
soliciting comment on technical constraints of new ``greenfield'' sites
and specific site designs such as these which present challenges in
implementing the well site pneumatic pump requirements in the 2016
Rule. The EPA is, therefore, soliciting comment on extending the phase-
in period for 2 years, the time period the EPA estimates its
reconsideration process and the issuance of the resulting rule would
take, so that the EPA may provide the necessary clarification or
revision in conjunction with its reconsideration process, thereby
addressing all issues in one rulemaking. The EPA is also soliciting
comment on extending the phase-in period and the appropriate length of
the phase-in period for the well site pneumatic pump requirements as an
alternative to the proposed stay of these requirements.

C. Professional Engineering Certification Requirements

    The EPA proposed to stay for 2 years the requirement for closed
vent system certification by professional engineer while the EPA
evaluates the benefits, as well as the cost and other compliance
burden, associated with this requirement. 82 FR 27647, June 16, 2017.
Such costs and associated burden are significant in light of the number
of affected sources. Based on the EPA's estimates, approximately 16,000
affected sources (i.e., pneumatic pumps, compressors, and storage
vessels) came online between the proposed rule and the final 2016 Rule,
not counting those that have and will come online since. The EPA
received feedback that owners and operators had to reanalyze and
potentially redesign the closed vent systems in order to meet this
certification requirement. Subsequent to the proposed stay, the EPA
received feedback from some stakeholders that owners and operators have
struggled to obtain professional engineers to complete these
certifications primarily because of a shortage of professional
engineers certified in each state of operation with experience in the
design of these systems. In light of this, the EPA is soliciting
comment on the availability of professional engineers qualified in each
state of operation and experienced in the oil and gas field and the
costs associated with completing the certification requirements in the
2016 Rule. The EPA additionally solicits comment on the costs of
reanalyzing and redesigning sites in order to comply with the
requirements of the 2016 Rule. Lastly, in light of the challenges
described above, the EPA is soliciting comment on providing a period to
phase in this certification period as an alternative to staying this
requirement. The EPA emphasizes that the proposed stay for this
certification requirement would not affect sources' obligation to meet
the underlying applicable emission standards during that time frame. As
explained above, this certification requirement is not an emission
standard, but a compliance measure to provide additional assurance that
the emission standards are being met.

IV. Estimated Cost Savings, Forgone Benefits, and Net Benefits of the
Proposed Stay

    Since the June 16, 2017, proposal, the EPA has updated the economic
analysis presented in the proposed stay to include estimates of the
forgone benefits associated with the proposed rule. In addition, the
updated analysis reflects a revised time frame and corrects a technical
error in the calculation of cost savings, resulting in a minor increase
in cost savings associated with the proposed rule. The previous
analysis assumed that the proposed 2-year stay would cover the time
period from September 2017 through September 2019. As September has
passed, the analysis has been updated to reflect a time frame beginning
in January 2018 and ending in December 2019.

    The present value of the updated cost savings of the proposed stay
are $270 million at a discount rate of 7 percent and $280 million at a
discount rate of 3 percent. The present value of the forgone climate
benefits using the domestic social cost of methane estimates are $11
million at 7 percent and $37 million at 3 percent. The present value of
net benefits is $250 million at 7 percent, and $240 million at 3
percent.
    The equivalent annualized values of the cost savings are $100
million per year when using a 7-percent discount rate and $99 million
per year using a 3-percent discount rate. The equivalent annualized
values are the annualized present values, or the even flow of the
present values, over the years affected by the proposal. The equivalent
annualized value of the forgone climate benefits is $4.3 million per
year at 7 percent and $13 million per year at 3 percent. The equivalent
annualized value of net benefits is $97 million per year at 7 percent,
and $86 million per year at 3 percent. Please see the memorandum
``Estimated Cost Savings and Forgone Benefits Associated with the
Proposed Rule, Oil and Natural Gas: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements''
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505 for details.

    Dated: November 1, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-24344 Filed 11-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 247)]
[Notices]
[Page 73419]
[DOCID:fr27de07-120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Transport
Airplane and Engine Issues

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the FAA's Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to discuss transport airplane and
engine (TAE) issues.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 6, 2008,
starting at 9 am Eastern Standard Time. Arrange for oral presentations
by January 23, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Boeing, 1200 Wilson Blvd, Conference Room 234, Arlington,
Virginia 22209.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicanor Davidson, Office of
Rulemaking, ARM-207, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app. III), notice is
given of an ARAC meeting to be held February 6, 2008.
    The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

 Opening Remarks
 FAA Report
 European Aviation Safety Agency Report
 ARAC Executive Committee Report
 Transport Canada Report
 Airplane-level Safety Analysis Working Group Report
    [cir] Closure of Task 2 and Status of Task 3
 Propeller Harmonization Working Group (HWG) Report
 Ice Protection HWG Report
 Airworthiness Assurance HWG Report
 Avionics HWG Report
 Any Other Business
 Action Item Review

    Attendance is open to the public, but will be limited to the
availability of meeting room space. Please confirm your attendance with
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no
later than January 23, 2008. Please provide the following information:
Full legal name, country of citizenship, and name of your industry
association, or applicable affiliation. If you are attending as a
public citizen, please indicate so.
    For persons participating by telephone, the call-in number is (202)
366-3920; the Passcode is ``6039.'' To insure that sufficient telephone
lines are available, please notify the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of your intent to participate by telephone
by January 23, 2008. Anyone calling from outside the Washington, DC
metropolitan area will be responsible for paying long-distance charges.
    The public must make arrangements by January 23, 2008, to present
oral statements at the meeting. Written statements may be presented to
the ARAC at any time by providing 25 copies to the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    If you need assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for
the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Sign and oral
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 19, 2007.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E7-25020 Filed 12-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 183 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 59346]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20712]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-154, OMB Control No. 3235-0122]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 17a-10

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-
10 (17 CFR 240.17a-10) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    The primary purpose of Rule 17a-10 is to obtain the economic and
statistical data necessary for an ongoing analysis of the securities
industry. Paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a-10 generally requires broker-
dealers that are exempted from the requirement to file monthly and
quarterly reports pursuant to paragraph (a) of Exchange Act Rule 17a-5
(17 CFR 240.17a-5) to file with the Commission the Facing Page, a
Statement of Income (Loss), and balance sheet from Part IIA of Form X-
17A-5 \1\ (17 CFR 249.617), and Schedule I of Form X-17A-5 not later
than 17 business days after the end of each calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Form X-17A-5 is the Financial and Operational Combined
Uniform Single Report (``FOCUS Report''), which is used by broker-
dealers to provide certain required information to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 17a-10 requires a broker-dealer subject to
Rule 17a-5(a) to submit Schedule I of Form X-17A-5 with its Form X-17A-
5 for the calendar quarter ending December 31 of each year. The burden
associated with filing Schedule I of Form X-17A-5 is accounted for in
the PRA filing associated with Rule 17a-5.
    Paragraph (b) of Rule 17a-10 provides that the provisions of
paragraph (a) do not apply to members of national securities exchanges
or registered national securities associations that maintain records
containing the information required by Form X-17A-5 and which transmit
to the Commission copies of the records pursuant to a plan which has
been declared effective by the Commission.
    The Commission staff estimates that approximately 46 broker-dealers
will spend an average of 12 hours per year complying with Rule 17a-10.
Thus, the total compliance burden is estimated to be approximately 552
burden-hours per year.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 15, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20712 Filed 9-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P