[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 6, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26907-26911]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09373]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0062; FRL-10008-86-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Maryland; 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Limited
Maintenance Plan for the Kent and Queen Anne's Counties Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. This revision pertains to the Maryland Department of
the Environment's (MDE) plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the Kent and Queen
Anne's Counties area. This action is being taken under the Clean Air
Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0062 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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. 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, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2117. Mr. Talley can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 18, 2019, MDE submitted a
revision to the Maryland SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining the
1997 ozone NAAQS through January 1, 2028, in accordance with CAA
section 175A. On March 12, 2020, MDE submitted a technical correction
to their initial submittal, which included ``Appendix B--2014 Emissions
Inventory Methodology Documentation.'' This appendix had been
inadvertently omitted from the original submittal.

I. Background

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997,
EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over
an 8-hour period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\1\ EPA set the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the Kent and
Queen Anne's Counties area as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hr ozone
NAAQS. 69 FR 23858.
    Once a nonattainment area has three years of complete, certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the NAAQS, and the
area has met the other criteria outlined in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E),\2\ the state can submit a request to EPA to redesignate
the area to attainment. Areas that have been redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment are referred to as ``maintenance areas.''
One of the criteria for redesignation is to have an approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The maintenance plan must
demonstrate that the area will continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after redesignation, and it must contain
such additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance as well
contingency measures as necessary to assure that violations of the
standard will be promptly corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval under section 110(k) of the
applicable SIP, determination that improvement in air quality is a
result of permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,
demonstration that the state has met all applicable section 110 and
part D requirements, and a fully approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 22, 2006 (effective January 22, 2007), EPA approved a
redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from MDE for the Kent and
Queen Anne's Counties area. 71 FR 76920. In accordance with section
175A(b), at the end of the eighth year after the effective date of the
redesignation, the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to
ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years.
    EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that one consequence of revocation
was that areas that had been redesignated to attainment (i.e.,
maintenance areas) for the 1997 NAAQS no longer needed to submit second
10-year maintenance plans under CAA section 175A(b).\3\ However, in
South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA \4\ (South Coast
II), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, second maintenance plans were
not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' (i.e., areas like Kent
and Queen Anne's Counties) that had been redesignated to attainment for
the 1997 NAAQS and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Thus, states with these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the 1997
ozone NAAQS must submit maintenance plans for the second maintenance
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
    \4\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria
for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published
longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the content of
an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five elements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory;
(2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air
quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued
attainment; and (5) a contingency plan.\5\ The 1992 Calcagni memo
provides that states may generally demonstrate maintenance by either
performing air quality modeling to show that the future mix of sources
and emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by
showing that future emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will
not exceed the level of emissions during a year when the area was
attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment year inventory). See Calcagni
Memo at p. 9. EPA further clarified in three subsequent guidance memos
describing ``limited maintenance plans'' (LMPs) \6\ that the
requirements of CAA section 175A could be met by demonstrating that the
area's design value \7\ was well below the NAAQS and that the
historical stability of the area's air quality levels showed that the
area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future. Specifically, EPA
believes that if the most recent air quality design value for the area
is at a level that is below 85% of the standard, or in this

case below 0.071 ppm, then EPA considers the state to have met the
section 175A requirement for a demonstration that the area will
maintain the NAAQS for the requisite period. Accordingly, on December
18, 2019, MDE submitted an LMP for the Kent and Queen Anne's Counties
area, demonstrating that the area will maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS
through January 1, 2028, i.e., through the entire 20-year maintenance
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo).
    \6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
    \7\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    MDE's December 18, 2019 SIP submittal outlines a plan for continued
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS which addresses the criteria set
forth in the Calcagni Memo as follows.

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    A state should develop a comprehensive and accurate inventory of
actual emissions for an attainment year which identifies the level of
emissions in the area which is sufficient to maintain the NAAQS. The
inventory should be developed consistent with EPA's most recent
guidance. For ozone, the inventory should be based on typical summer
day's emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC), the precursors to ozone formation.
    Table 1 presents a summary of the 2014 inventories submitted in the
maintenance plan.

                             Table 1--2014 Typical Summer Day VOC and NOX Emissions
                                                  [tons/day] 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Area                                Source category                VOC             NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent County...................................  Nonroad.........................            2.49            1.23
                                                Onroad..........................            0.42            0.96
                                                Point Source....................            0.04            0.23
                                                Area Source.....................            0.82            0.05
Queen Anne's County...........................  Nonroad.........................            2.63            1.60
                                                Onroad..........................            1.10            3.69
                                                Point Source....................            0.03            0.05
                                                Area Source.....................            1.97            0.09
                                                                                -------------------------------
    Total.....................................  ................................            9.50            7.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2014 emissions inventory was prepared by MDE and uploaded into
EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) for inclusion in EPA's National
Emission Inventory (NEI). The inventory addresses four anthropogenic
emission source categories: Stationary (point) sources, stationary
nonpoint (area) sources, nonroad mobile, and on-road mobile sources.
Point sources are stationary sources that have the potential to emit
(pte) more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of VOC, or more than 50 tpy of
NOX, and which are required to obtain an operating permit.
Data are collected for each source at a facility and reported to MDE.
Stationary area sources have relatively low emissions individually, but
due to the large number of sources, cumulative emissions could be
significant. Examples include fuel combustion for household heating.
Emissions are estimated by using emission factors and known variables
such as population, or number of households. On-road mobile emissions
are modelled by MDE using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES). MDE generates nonroad mobile source emissions data through the
use of EPA's NONROAD2014a model, except for marine air and rail
emissions which are estimated at the county level based on emission
factors and activity levels. EPA reviewed the supporting documentation
submitted by MDE \9\ and proposes to conclude that the plan's inventory
is acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent maintenance plan under
CAA section 175A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Data in Table 1 have been rounded. See Table 4.1-1 of MDE's
December 18, 2019 submittal for precise data.
    \9\ See Appendix B of MDE's March 12, 2020 technical correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    In order to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily average ozone concentrations (design value,
DV) at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on
the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the
standard is attained if the DV is 0.084 ppm or below. CAA section 175A
requires a demonstration that the area will continue to maintain the
NAAQS throughout the duration of the requisite maintenance period.
Consistent with the prior guidance documents discussed previously in
this document, EPA believes that if the most recent DV for the area is
well below the NAAQS (e.g., below 85%, or in this case below 0.071
ppm), the section 175A demonstration requirement has been met, provided
that Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements, any control
measures already in the SIP, and any Federal measures remain in place
through the end of the second 10-year maintenance period (absent a
showing consistent with section 110(l) that such measures are not
necessary to assure maintenance). Table 2 shows that the last two DVs
for the Kent and Queen Anne's County area continue to be below 85% of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 2016-2018 DV was published by EPA after the date of
MDE's submittal. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-07/ozone_designvalues_20162018_final_06_28_19.xlsx.

                      Table 2--Recent Air Quality Values for Kent and Queen Anne's Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Design value                    Design value
           Designated area                  years        AQS site ID        (DV)             DV <0.071 ppm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent and Queen Anne's Counties.......       2015-2017     24-029-0002           0.070  Yes.
                                            2016-2018     24-029-0002           0.069  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, states can support the demonstration of continued
maintenance by showing stable or improving air quality trends. Several
kinds of analyses can be performed by states wishing to make such a
showing. One approach is to take the most recent DV for the area and
add the biggest increase that has been observed over the past several
years. A sum that is still below the NAAQS would be considered a good
indication of continued attainment.\11\ Going back to the 2004-2006 DV
years, the largest increase in DV was 0.008 ppm and occurred between
the 2009-2011 (0.074 ppm) and the 2010-2012 (0.082 ppm) DV years.\12\
Adding 0.008 ppm to the most recent DV of 0.069 ppm results in a sum
that is still below the NAAQS (0.077 ppm). Therefore, EPA believes MDE
has satisfactorily demonstrated that future violations of the NAAQS in
this area are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/documents/ozone_1997_naaqs_lmp_resource_document_nov_20_2018.pdf at
pgs. 6-7.
    \12\ See Tables 3.1-1 and 3.2-2 of MDE's December 18, 2019
submittal found at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-
R03-OAR-2020-0062.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Continued Air Quality Monitoring and Verification of Continued
Attainment

    Once an area has been redesignated to attainment, the State remains
obligated to maintain an air quality network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, in order to verify the area's attainment status. MDE monitors
ambient ozone concentrations at the Millington, MD site (Air Quality
System (AQS)) Site ID 24-029-0002). In the December 18, 2019 submittal,
Maryland committed to maintaining an appropriate air quality monitoring
network, in accordance with part 58. MDE committed to track and analyze
any exceedances of the NAAQS during the maintenance period.

D. Contingency Plan

    CAA section 175A requires that each maintenance plan include
provisions which require the state to maintain all control measures
which were in place in the SIP prior to redesignation. Additionally,
each maintenance plan must contain contingency measures sufficient to
assure that the state will promptly correct violations of the NAAQS
after the area is redesignated as an attainment area.
    MDE's December 18, 2019 submittal outlines its foundation control
program, which is intended to prevent violations of the NAAQS. MDE
committed to continued implementation of the SIP measures for the
control of NOX and VOC which were in place prior to
redesignation. These include the Tier 3 Vehicle Emissions and Control
Program, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs, and standards for
various nonroad engines.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See MDE's December 18, 2019 submittal at pgs. 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MDE's December 18, 2019 submittal also included a contingency plan,
to be implemented in the event of NAAQS violations in the future. MDE
listed two specific regulatory measures which will be evaluated and
implemented through the promulgation of a rule in the event that the
contingency plan is triggered. First, MDE will consider accelerating
compliance with Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) section
<IP_ADDRESS> (Control of VOC Emissions from Portable Fuel Containers) by
creating a voluntary portable fuel container exchange program affecting
residences and businesses. Second, MDE will consider lowering the
applicability threshold for industrial, commercial, and institutional
(ICI) boiler standards under COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, potentially impacting
the sources listed in Table 3.

 Table 3--Sources Potentially Impacted by Lower Applicability Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Queen Anne's County                      Kent County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake College.....................  Washington College.
Kent Narrows Waste Water Treatment       Kent and Queen Anne's Hospital.
 Plant.
Queen Anne's County Emergency Center...  Wenger's Feed Mill.
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Maintenance and    Kent County Public Works and
 Administration Facility.                 Roads Building.
Centerville Town Hall and Sheriff's      Monsanto-Asgrow Seeds.
 Department.
Queenstown Town Offices and Courthouse.  Maryland SHA District 2 Office.
County Health Department...............  Maryland State Police.
County Board of Education..............  National Guard Armory.
County Courthouse......................  County Courthouse.
County Department of Public Works......  Chestertown Filtration Plant.
Maryland SHA Garage....................  County Schools.
Maryland State Police..................
National Guard Armory..................
County Schools.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MDE's contingency plan also includes the possibility of
implementing other measures as necessary in order to return the area to
attainment.
    After the fourth ozone season exceedance of the 1997 NAAQS (0.08
ppm) at the Millington monitoring station, MDE will immediately
recalculate the DV for that monitor. If the recalculated DV exceeds the
NAAQS, the contingency plan will be ``triggered,'' based on the
following schedule: (1) Within two weeks of the trigger, MDE will
notify Kent and Queen Anne's Counties and other stakeholders and
schedule a meeting concerning the selection and implementation of
contingency measures; (2) Within six weeks of the trigger, the meeting
will be convened; (3) Within twelve weeks of the trigger, a public
meeting will be held on the proposed contingency measures; (4) Within
eighteen weeks of the trigger, all stakeholders will convene to
consider public comments and finalize a list of planned contingency
measures; (5) After the list of contingency measures is finalized, it
will take approximately twelve months to complete any required
rulemaking processes; (6) Within twenty four months of the trigger,
agreed upon contingency measure will be implemented in the impacted
counties.

E. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay

timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's conformity
rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they conform. The conformity rule generally
requires a demonstration that emissions from the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB)
contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40
CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined as ``that portion of
the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or approved
control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan for a
certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further progress
milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, for
any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to highway and
transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).''
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)). However,
because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects still will have
to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet
the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR 93.112) and
transportation control measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.113). Additionally, conformity determinations for
RTPs and TIPs must be determined no less frequently than every four
years, and conformity of transportation plan and TIP amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, for projects to
be approved, they must come from a currently conforming RTP and TIP (40
CFR 93.114 and 93.115).

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of MDE's December 18, 2019 submittal and March 12,
2020 technical correction indicates they meet CAA section 175A and all
applicable CAA requirements. EPA is proposing to approve the LMP for
Kent and Queen Anne's Counties as a revision to the Maryland SIP. EPA
is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining Maryland's limited
maintenance plan for Kent and Queen Anne's Counties, does not have
tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 27, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-09373 Filed 5-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19143-19147]
[FR Doc No: E9-9539]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0028; FRL-8897-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions to Particulate Matter Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for
the state of Texas. These revisions revise and recodify regulations for
control of particulate matter in the Texas SIP. This rulemaking action
is being taken under section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on May 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0028. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a fee of 15 cents
per page for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Kordzi, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
214-665-7263; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Outline

I. What Is the Background?
    A. Recent History of the Changes to 30 TAC Chapter 111
    B. Recap of Our Previous 1999 Action on 30 TAC Chapter 111
II. What Action Is EPA Taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background?

A. Recent History of the Changes to 30 TAC Chapter 111

    On October 28, 1999, we proposed to approve (1) a recodification of
and revisions to the regulations for the control of particulate matter
into the Texas SIP, and (2) the removal of the Texas Air Control Board,
Board Seal rule from the Texas SIP and requested public comments on our
action (64 FR 58006). A simultaneous notice of direct final rulemaking
was also published (64 FR 57983). However, on November 29, 1999, we
received an adverse comment concerning our proposal to replace 30 TAC
111.105.2, Ground Level Concentrations, with 30 TAC 111.155, Control of
Air Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter. We
received no other comments on the direct final rulemaking. We therefore
withdrew the particulate matter regulations' part of the direct final
rulemaking action on December 17, 1999 (64 FR 70593) to consider how to
address the comment. We finalized approval of the second portion of the
NPR, i.e., the removal of the Board Seal rule from the Texas SIP, on
March 30, 2005 (70 FR 16129) since there were no comments on our
proposed approval.
    Since our proposed approval, we have been in discussions with TCEQ
regarding planned modifications to Chapter 111. On June 16, 2006, we
received a request from the TCEQ to remove from consideration its
previous request to replace 30 TAC 111.105.2 with 30 TAC 111.155 and to
revise the Texas SIP by removing 30 TAC 105.2. In part, because of this
request, we are not finalizing our proposed approval of TAC 111.155. We
are finalizing our approval of the remaining sections of TAC Chapter
111 that we proposed approval of in 1999 as there were no comments on
our proposed approval of these sections.

B. Recap of Our Previous 1999 Action on 30 TAC Chapter 111

    The following is a recap of the particulate matter portion of the
October 28, 1999 proposed action. The State repealed all of its
existing particulate matter regulations and replaced them in Chapter
111, Sections 111.101 to 111.183, on June 16, 1989. The State revised
the new sections in 1990, 1991 and 1993. We approved into the Texas SIP
in 1994 and 1996 many of the new sections of Chapter 111, but not all
of them. On August 21, 1996, the State made further formatting and
reorganization changes by adding two Subchapters to Chapter 111,
putting the open burning regulations under the new Subchapter B and all
other sections into the new Subchapter A.
    We proposed in October 1999 to approve the sections of the 1989
recodification of Chapter 111 and the 1990, 1991, and 1993 revisions
that we had not previously approved. We also proposed to approve the
1996 Subchapter additions and reorganization changes. We proposed to
approve the new recodified Sections 111.121, 111.151, 111.153 (with
some substantive revisions), 111.155, 111.171 (with the deletion of
Figure 3), 111.173, 111.175, 111.181, and 111.183. We also proposed to
approve the 1996 moving and recodification of Sections 111.101,
111.103, 111.105, and 111.107 into a new Subchapter B as Sections
111.201, 111.203 (adding new definitions for clarity), 111.205,
111.207, 111.209 (clarifying the types of waste and allowing burning of
diseased animal carcasses when burning is the most effective means to
control the spread of disease), 111.211, 111.213 (adding new sampling
and monitoring requirements), 111.215 (clarifying the burning cannot
cause a nuisance condition or traffic hazard), 111.219, and 111.221.
Furthermore, we proposed to approve the 1996 moving and recodification
of all of the remaining sections in Chapter 111 into the new Subchapter
A.
    Please refer to the 1999 Federal Registers for additional
information concerning the nature of the proposed action to approve
revisions and recodification to the particulate matter regulations.

II. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    We are approving revisions to Regulation I in the Texas SIP adopted
by the TACB on June 16, 1989, and submitted to EPA on August 21, 1989,
concerning Incineration, Emission Limits on Nonagricultural Processes
(with the exception of Section 111.155), Emission Limits on
Agricultural

Processes, Exemptions for Portable or Transient Operations, and the
repeal of Section 111.92, Compliance Dates.
    We are also approving revisions, adopted by the Texas Natural
Resources Commission (now TCEQ) March 29, 1995, and August 21, 1996,
and submitted to EPA on July 12, 1995, and August 30, 1996,
respectively. These revisions revise and move the Outdoor Burning
sections of Regulation I into new Subchapter B, Outdoor Burning, and
move the rest of the sections in Regulation I into new Subchapter A,
Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter. This will bring the Texas
particulate matter SIP more up to date in both format and substance and
make the SIP more consistent with the State's rules which would enhance
Federal enforcement.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 29, 2009. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 14, 2009.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. The table in Sec.  52.2270(c) entitled ``EPA Approved Regulations in
the Texas SIP'' is amended by revising the entries under Chapter 111 to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                    EPA-Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State approval/
         State citation               Title/subject       submittal date   EPA approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Chapter 111 (Reg 1)--Control of Air Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter
                             Subchapter A: Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter
                                          Division 1: Visible Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 111.111(a), (b)........  Requirements for              6/18/1993  5/8/1996, 61 FR
                                  Specified Sources.                       20732.
Section 111.111(c).............  Requirements for             10/25/1991  1/18/1994, 59 FR
                                  Specified Sources.                       2532.
Section 111.113................  Alternative Opacity           6/16/1989  5/8/1996, 61 FR
                                  Limitations.                             20732.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                            Division 2: Incineration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 111.121................  Single-Chamber                6/16/1989  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  Incineration.                            FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Division 4: Materials Handling, Construction, Roads, Streets, Alleys, and Parking Lots
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 111.141................  Geographic Areas of          10/25/1991  1/18/1994, 59 FR
                                  Application and Date                     02532.
                                  of Compliance.
Section 111.143................  Materials Handling.....       6/16/1989  1/18/1994, 59 FR
                                                                           02532.
Section 111.145................  Construction and             10/25/1991  1/18/1994, 59 FR
                                  Demolition.                              02532.
Section 111.147................  Roads, Streets, and          10/25/1991  1/18/1994, 59 FR
                                  Alleys.                                  02532.
Section 111.149................  Parking Lots...........       6/16/1989  1/18/1994, 59 FR
                                                                           02532.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Division 5: Emission Limits on Nonagricultural Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 111.151................  Allowable Emissions           6/16/1989  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  Limits.                                  FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].
Section 111.153................  Emission Limits for           6/16/1989  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  Steam Generators.                        FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].
Rule 105.2.....................  Ground Level                  1/26/1972  5/31/1972, 27 FR
                                  Concentrations.                          10842.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Division 6: Emission Limits on Agricultural Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 111.171................  Emission Limits Based         6/16/1989  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  on Process Weight                        FR page number
                                  Method.                                  where document
                                                                           begins].
Section 111.173................  Emissions Limits Based        6/16/1989  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  on Alternate Method.                     FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].
Section 111.175................  Exemptions.............       6/16/1989  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                                                           FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Division 7: Exemptions for Portable or Transient Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 111.181................  Exemption Policy.......       6/16/1989  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                                                           FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].
Section 111.183................  Requirements for              6/16/1989  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  Exemptions.                              FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Subchapter B: Outdoor Burning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 111.201................  General Prohibitions...       8/21/1996  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                                                           FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].
Section 111.203................  Definitions............       8/21/1996  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                                                           FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].
Section 111.205................  Exceptions for Fire           8/21/1996  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  Training.                                FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].
Section 111.207................  Exceptions for Fires          8/21/1996  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  Used for Recreation,                     FR page number
                                  Ceremony, Cooking, and                   where document
                                  Warmth.                                  begins].
Section 111.209................  Exception for Disposal        8/21/1996  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  Fires.                                   FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].
Section 111.211................  Exception for                 8/21/1996  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  Prescribed Burn.                         FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].

Section 111.213................  Exception for                 8/21/1996  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  Hydrocarbon Burning.                     FR page number
                                                                           where document
                                                                           begins].
Section 111.215................  Executive Director            8/21/1996  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  Approval of Otherwise                    FR page number
                                  Prohibited Outdoor                       where document
                                  Burning.                                 begins].
Section 111.219................  General Requirements          8/21/1996  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  for Allowable Outdoor                    FR page number
                                  Burning.                                 where document
                                                                           begins].
Section 111.221................  Responsibility for            8/21/1996  4/28/2009 [Insert
                                  Consequences of                          FR page number
                                  Outdoor Burning.                         where document
                                                                           begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-9539 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT ANALYSIS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL BOILERS AND PROCESS HEATERS NESHAP RULEMAKING UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT ( February 2004)

This document provides an analysis of the effects of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (" EPA") industrial/ commercial/ institutional ( henceforth called " industrial") maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) rulemaking under Title III of the Clean Air Act on State, local, and tribal governments, and the public sector as required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (" UMRA"). The Agency has determined that an UMRA analysis is required because this MACT rulemaking will affect units operated by State and local governments, and will impose a cost on the private sector greater than $ 100 million in any one year.

This UMRA analysis examines the impacts of the rule on units that are owned by State, local, and tribal governments. This analysis is drawn from the economic impact analysis conducted for the rule, and this analysis is available in the public docket.

Background on the Rule and Affected Sources Sources affected by this rule include all industrial boilers and process heaters located at a major facility. For this rule, a fuel means any material combusted in a boiler or process heater that is not considered a solid waste. Affected sources do not include municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, fossil fuel fired electric utility steam generating units, commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units, recovery boilers or furnaces, or hazardous waste combustors required to have a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act or are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE.

The rule is set at the MACT floor established for both existing and new sources. For existing sources, the MACT floor is the median of the best performing 12 percent of affected sources ( i. e., the industrial boiler or process heater units representing the 94th percentile). The median is the control technology in the middle of the range of the best performing 12 percent of sources. After establishing this technology basis, the Agency then examined the available emissions data to determine achievable emissions limits. The resulting emissions limits associated with the MACT floors for each pollutant represent the maximum pound per mmBTU heat input emission rate reported for the given pollutant/ control technology combination for each subcategory, of which there are nine. For new sources, the Agency determined the MACT floor for each pollutant category by identifying the best controlled source for each subcategory on a pollutant category by pollutant category basis. The Agency then examined the available emissions data from affected sources to determine achievable emission limits. The resulting emissions limits associated with the MACT floors for each pollutant are based on the highest data point from a unit using the " best" technology, since such a value is a reasonable estimate of the performance of the " best controlled similar unit" under the worst foreseeable circumstances. The emissions limits per pollutant for both existing and new sources are listed below in Table 1.

The rule affects both existing and new industrial boilers and process heaters. Emission limits were developed for large, small, and limited use solid, liquid, and gas fuel fired units. Large units are those with heat input capacities greater than 10 MMBtu/ hr. Small units are those with heat input capacities less than or equal to 10 MMBtu/ hr. Limited use units are those with capacity utilizations less than or equal to 10 percent as required in a federally enforceable permit. You must meet the emission limits and work practice standards for the subcategories in Table 1 of this preamble for each of the pollutants listed. Emission limits and work practice standards were developed for new and existing sources; and for large, small, and limited use solid, liquid, and gas fuel fired units. Large units are those watertube boilers and process heaters with heat input capacities greater than 10 million British thermal units per hour ( MMBtu/ hr). Small units are any firetube boilers or any boiler and process heater with heat input capacities less than or equal to 10 MMBtu/ hr. Limited use units are those large units with capacity utilizations less than or equal to 10 percent as required in a federally enforceable permit.

If your new or existing boiler or process heater is permitted to burn a solid fuel ( either as a primary fuel or a backup fuel), or any combination of solid fuel with liquid or gaseous fuel, the unit is in one of the solid subcategories. If your new or existing boiler or process heater burns a liquid fuel, or a liquid fuel in combination with a gaseous fuel, the unit is in one of the liquid subcategories, except if the unit burns liquid only during periods of gas curtailment. If your new or existing boiler or process heater burns a gaseous fuel not combined with any liquid or solid fuels, or burns liquid fuel only during periods of gas curtailment or gas supply emergencies, the unit is in the gaseous subcategory.

TABLE 1. EMISSION LIMITS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS FOR BOILERS AND PROCESS HEATERS ( pounds per million British thermal units ( lb/ MMBtu))

Source Subcategory Particulate Matter ( PM) or Total Selected Metals Hydrogen Chloride ( HCl) Mercury ( Hg) Carbon Monoxide ( CO)( ppm)

New Boiler or Process Heater Solid Fuel, Large Unit 0.025 or 0.0003 0.02 0.000003 400 (@ 7% oxyg en)

Solid Fuel, Small Unit 0.025 or 0.0003 0.02 0.000003

Solid Fuel, Limited Use 0.025 or 0.0003 0.02 0.000003 400 (@ 7% oxyg en)

Liquid Fuel, Large Unit 0.03  0.0005  400 (@ 3% oxyg en)

Liquid Fuel, Small Unit 0.03  0.0009

Liquid Fuel, Limited Use 0.03  0.0009  400 (@ 3% oxyg en)

Gaseous Fuel Large Unit     400 (@ 3% oxyg en) Gaseous Fuel Small Unit

Gaseous Fuel Limited Use     400 (@ 3% oxyg en)

Existing Boiler or Process Heater Solid Fuel, Large Unit 0.07 or 0.002 0.09 0.000009

Solid Fuel, Small Unit

Solid Fuel, Limited Use 0.21 or 0.002

Liquid Fuel, Large Unit

Liquid Fuel, Small Unit

Liquid Fuel, Limited Use

Gaseous Fuel

aTotal non mercury metal HAPs include: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel.

For solid fuel fired boilers or process heaters, sources may choose one of two emission limit options: ( 1) existing and new affected units may choose to limit PM emissions to the level listed in Table 1 of this preamble, or ( 2) existing and new affected units may choose to limit total selected metals emissions to the level listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

Sources meeting the emission limits must also meet operating limits.

We have provided several alternative compliance options in the final rule. Sources may choose to demonstrate compliance based on the fuel pollutant content. Sources are also allowed to demonstrate compliance for existing solid fuel fired units using emissions averaging. In addition, sources of hydrochloric acid ( HCl) and manganese ( Mn) can also take advantage of a alternative compliance option if the risk level of their emissions is low enough.

For more information on the provisions of the rule, please refer to the preamble.

Of the 57,000 industrial boilers and process heaters known to operate at a major source facility in the United States, only 3,730 existing ones ( or 6 percent) are likely to incur costs associated with this rule.

According to the economic impact analysis, the rule is expected to affect 257 existing sources nationwide owned by 54 different government entities. Of these 54 entities, 13 are communities, and 27 are universities. The remaining 14 are spread across these government entities: the federal government, States, and counties. Virtually all of the existing sources affected at these facilities are industrial boilers that are fossil fuel fired and provide electric power to consumers. For more information, please refer to the " Economic Impact Analysis of Air Pollution Regulations: Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP" which is in the docket.

Benefit and Cost Impacts for this Rule The annual compliance costs to existing affected sources, which include the costs of control and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, are estimated at $ 863 million ( 1999 dollars) for implementation of the rule through 2005. It should be noted that the impacts of this rule are estimated through 2005. Annual compliance costs to new affected sources, of which there are 380, are estimated at $ 26 million ( 1999 dollars) through 2005. The benefits of this rule include the reduction of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) that are metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel. Virtually all of these metal HAPs are known, probable, or possible carcinogens. Other HAPs whose emissions will be reduced by this rule are hydrochloric acid and hydrogen fluoride. Other benefits of this rule include the reduction of criteria pollutants such as particulate matter ( both PM10 and PM2.5) and sulfur dioxide ( SO2). The estimated HAP emissions reductions from existing sources are 58,500 tons per year through 2005. Emissions of HCl will be reduced by 42,000 tpy for existing units. Emissions of mercury will be reduced by 1.9 tpy for existing units. Emissions of total selected nonmercury metals ( i. e., arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium) will be reduced by 1,100 tpy for existing units. The coarse particulate ( PM10) emission reductions from existing sources are estimated to be 562,000 tons per year through 2005, the fine particulate ( PM2.5) are estimated at 159,000 tons through 2005 and the SO2 emissions reductions from existing sources are estimated at 113,000 tons per year through 2005. The additional emissions reductions from new sources is a very small fraction of the estimated emission reductions from existing sources; the total reduction of HAPs from new sources is only 73 tons per year through 2005. Of these reductions, 72 tons per year of HCL are reduced, 1.4 tons per year of the total selected nonmercury metals, and 0.006 tons per year of mercury are reduced. For non HAP emissions, the reductions from new sources are as follows: 480 tons per year of PM10, 134 tons per year of PM2.5, and 110 tons per year of SO2.

The Agency is not able to monetize the benefits from the HAP emission reductions due to a lack of scientific data. However, the Agency is able to monetize the benefits from the PM10, PM2.5, and SO2 emissions reductions. The monetized benefits from these reductions from existing sources are substantial: $ 16.1 billion ( 1999 dollars), which is the Agency's primary benefits estimate for this rule. The difference between the primary benefits estimate and the estimated annual costs is $ 15.3 billion ( 1999 dollars). It should be noted that there are a large number of benefits from the PM and SO2 emission reductions that could not be monetized, and these are defined as " B" in the RIA. These benefits are listed below in Table 2. For more information on the compliance costs and benefits, please refer to the " Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP" which is in the docket. TABLE 2. C UNQUANTIFIED BENEFIT CATEGORIES Unquantified benefit categories associated with HAP Unquantified benefit categories associated with PM Health Categories C Airway responsiveness C Pulmonary inflammation C Increases susceptibility to respiratory infection C Acute inflammation and respiratory cell damage C Chronic respiratory damage/ Premature aging of lungs C Emergency room visits for asthma C Changes in pulmonary function.

C Morphological changes. Altered host defense mechanisms C Other chronic respiratory disease C Emergency room visits for asthma C Emergency visits for non asthma respiratory and cardiovascular causes C Lower and upper respiratory systems C Acute bronchitis C Shortness of breath C Increased school absence rates C Materials damage C Damage to ecosystems ( e. g., acid sulfate deposition).

C Nitrates in drinking water C Visibility in recreational and residential areas Welfare Categories C Ecosystem and vegetation effects C Damage to urban ornamentals ( e. g. grass, flowers, shrubs, and trees in urban areas)

C Commercial field crops C Fruit and vegetable crops C Reduced yields of tree seedlings, commercial and non commercial forests C Damage to ecosystems C Materials damage This rule requires the minimum level of control and paperwork burden to existing and new industrial boilers and process heaters that is consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Other alternatives considered that provided more than the minimum level of control were deemed as not cost effective for the Agency to implement. For an explanation of the choice of regulatory alternatives for this rule, refer to the preamble. Hence, the Agency has tried to keep the impacts from compliance with this rule to a minimum for the affected sources, including government entities.

Impacts on Government Entities A screening analysis conducted as part of the economic impact analysis for this rule identified 13 small communities ( defined by the Small Business Administration as communities with a population of less than 50,000 people) that may be affected. All of these communities own and operate affected public power producers. For this report, public power producers are defined as nonprofit publically owned electrical utilities operated by municipalities, counties, and states or other publicly owned bodies such as public utility districts. Rural electric cooperatives are not part of this definition.

The vast majority of small municipal systems with affected boilers are located in the Midwest ( 11 of 13, or 85 percent). Four of these eleven municipal systems are located in Minnesota, two in Michigan, two in Indiana, and one each in Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The other two small municipal systems are found in Vermont and California. 6 Public power producers do not pay local or State taxes. However, they are typically under agreements to make annual contributions to state and local government operating funds. In addition, they are not guaranteed a rate of return as regulated public utilities are, but their rates are set by agreement with local councils and these rates are typically adjusted to reflect changes in operating costs.

Municipal utilities have the ability to generate capital through the issuance of tax exempt municipal bonds. These municipal bonds are exempt from federal income tax, and this allows these utilities finance capital projects at a more affordable rate. Additionally, the local governments investing in municipal utilities generally issue revenue bonds rather than general obiligation bonds. This ensures that the debt is paid back through revenues from electricity generation and does not obligate the local government or community tax base.

Of these communities, 6 are expected to have annual compliance costs of 1 percent or greater of their revenues through 2005. The median compliance costs as a percent of revenues for all 13 communities is 0.9 percent with only one community having compliance costs as a percent of revenues much greater than that ( 7.4 percent). For more information, please refer to the " Economic Impact Analysis of Air Pollution Regulations: Boilers and Process Heaters," which is in the docket.

It is expected that the impacts to government entities resulting from this rule should be a small proportion of the impacts to affected entities. Only $ 2.9 million of the annual costs for this rule will be borne by small communities.

References 1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. " Economic Analysis of Air Pollution Regulations: Boilers and Process Heaters." Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November, 2003.

2. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. " Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP." Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November, 2003.

3. American Public Power Association ( APPA). 2002. Straight Answers to False Charges About Public Power. Washington, D. C., APPA. Obtained on November 13, 2003 at http:// www. appanet. org/ about/ publicpower/ index. cfm.