[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31536-31540]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12505]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9816-8]

California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; In-
Use Heavy Duty Vehicles (as Applicable to Yard Trucks and Two-Engine
Sweepers); Notice of Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's)
request for authorization of California's emission standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures for in-use nonroad yard trucks and
auxiliary engines used in two-engine sweepers as found within CARB's
``Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides
of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants from In-Use Heavy-Duty
Diesel-Fueled Vehicles'' (Truck and Bus Regulation). The yard truck and
auxiliary engine regulation that EPA is authorizing represents only a
subset of provisions within the broader Truck and Bus Regulation. The
California Truck and Bus Regulation establishes requirements for and
principally applies to ``non-new'' on-road motor vehicles which are not
the subject of this decision (such regulations are not preempted under
the Clean Air Act). However, the Truck and Bus Regulation also applies
to some engines that are subject to preemption, including any nonroad
engines used to power yard trucks (which are principally used in
nonroad agricultural operations) and the auxiliary engines used to
power the broom or vacuum functions on two-engine sweepers. EPA's
authorization in this Notice of Decision applies only to the yard truck
and auxiliary engine provisions in the Truck and Bus Regulation.

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed by July 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0335. All documents relied upon in making this
decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in
the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open to the public on all
federal government working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally,
it is open Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and
Radiation Docket is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is
(202) 566-1742, and the fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic
version of the public docket is available through the federal
government's electronic public docket and comment system. You may
access EPA dockets at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the
www.regulations.gov Web site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0335 in the ``Enter
Keyword or ID'' fill-in box to view documents in the record. Although a
part of the official docket, the public docket does not include
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'') or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (``OTAQ'') maintains
a Web page that contains general information on its review of
California waiver requests. Included on that page are links to prior
waiver Federal Register notices, some of which are cited in today's
notice; the page can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Attorney-Advisor,
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. California's Regulation

    By letter dated March 2, 2012, CARB submitted to EPA its
authorization request (CARB Authorization Request)

pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``the
Act''), regarding its regulation of emissions from yard trucks and two-
engine sweepers (Yard Trucks Regulation).\1\ The Yard Trucks
Regulation, contained within CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation, was
approved by the CARB Board at a public hearing on December 11, 2008 (by
Resolution 08-43),\2\ and formally adopted on October 19, 2009. The
Truck and Bus Regulation is codified at title 13, California Code of
Regulations, section 2025.\3\ The CARB Board subsequently amended the
regulation on September 19, 2011 (by Resolution 10-44),\4\ which was
approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CARB Authorization Request at EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0335-0001.
    \2\ CARB Resolution 08-43 at EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0335-0021.
    \3\ CARB Final Regulation Order at EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0335-0005.
    \4\ CARB Resolution 10-44 at EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0335-0019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With exceptions applicable to certain agricultural vehicles,
including agricultural yard trucks, and auxiliary engines in two-engine
sweepers, all agricultural vehicles and the auxiliary engines in two-
engine sweepers must comply with general in-use emission requirements
depending upon the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and model year of
the vehicle. The amended regulation does not require that these
vehicles be equipped with particulate matter (PM) filters but does
require them to be upgraded to 2010 or later model year engines based
upon a model year/GVWR compliance schedule. Additional compliance
flexibilities are provided for heavier, heavy-duty vehicles and for
smaller fleets. In addition, the Yard Trucks Regulation includes a
number of other compliance flexibilities (e.g. early compliance
credits, exemptions for NOX-exempt areas, etc). Special
provisions apply to low-mileage agricultural vehicles, including
agricultural yard trucks with nonroad engines and special provisions
also apply to auxiliary engines used in two-engine sweepers.

B. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Authorizations

    Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any State, or
political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce
any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions
for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles.\5\ For all other nonroad
engines (including ``non-new'' nonroad engines), States are preempted
from adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements relating
to the control of emissions, except that section 209(e)(2) of the Act
requires EPA, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to
authorize California to adopt and enforce such regulations unless EPA
makes one of three specifically enumerated findings. In addition, other
states with air quality attainment plans, approved under part D of
Title I of the Act, may adopt and enforce such regulations if the
standards, and implementation and enforcement, are identical to
California's standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ States are expressly preempted from adopting or attempting
to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control
of emissions from new nonroad engines which are used in construction
equipment or vehicles or used in farm equipment or vehicles and
which are smaller than 175 horsepower. Such express preemption under
section 209(e)(1) of the Act also applies to new locomotives or new
engines used in locomotives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule that sets forth, among
other things, regulations providing the criteria, as found in section
209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before granting any California
authorization request for nonroad engine or vehicle emission
standards.\6\ EPA revised these regulations in 1997.\7\ As stated in
the preamble to the 1994 rule, EPA has historically interpreted the
section 209(e)(2)(iii) ``consistency'' inquiry to require, at minimum,
that California standards and enforcement procedures be consistent with
section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has
interpreted that subsection in the context of section 209(b) motor
vehicle waivers).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
    \7\ See 62 FR 67733 (December 30, 1997) and 40 CFR 1074.105.
    \8\ See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad
standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section
209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures
must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently
preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section
209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests
under the same ``consistency'' criteria that are applied to motor
vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the
Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she
finds that California ``standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)'' of the Act.
Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that
state standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with
section 202(a) if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to permit the
development of the necessary technology giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the
federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification
requirements.

C. Burden of Proof

    In Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (DC Cir.
1979) (``MEMA I''), the U.S. Court of Appeals stated that the
Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:

consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of materiality
and . . . thereafter assess such material evidence against a
standard of proof to determine whether the parties favoring a denial
of the waiver have shown that the factual circumstances exist in
which Congress intended a denial of the waiver.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122.

The court in MEMA I considered the standards of proof under section 209
for the two findings related to granting a waiver for an ``accompanying
enforcement procedure'' (as opposed to the standards themselves): (1)
Protectiveness in the aggregate and (2) consistency with section 202(a)
findings. The court instructed that ``the standard of proof must take
account of the nature of the risk of error involved in any given
decision, and it therefore varies with the finding involved. We need
not decide how this standard operates in every waiver decision.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a
waiver, there must be ``clear and compelling evidence'' to show that
proposed procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's
standards.\11\ The court noted that this standard of proof also accords
with the congressional intent to provide California with the broadest
possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the
public health and welfare.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not
articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found
that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of
proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence.
Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standards of proof
under section 209 concerning a

waiver request for ``standards,'' as compared to accompanying
enforcement procedures, there is nothing in the opinion to suggest that
the court's analysis would not apply with equal force to such
determinations. EPA's past waiver decisions have consistently made
clear that: ``[E]ven in the two areas concededly reserved for Federal
judgment by this legislation--the existence of `compelling and
extraordinary' conditions and whether the standards are technologically
feasible--Congress intended that the standards of EPA review of the
State decision to be a narrow one.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., 40 FR 21102-103 (May 28, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Opponents of the waiver bear the burden of showing that the
criteria for a denial of California's waiver request have been met. As
found in MEMA I, this obligation rests firmly with opponents of the
waiver in a section 209 proceeding:

[t]he language of the statute and its legislative history indicate
that California's regulations, and California's determinations that
they must comply with the statute, when presented to the
Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and
that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them.
California must present its regulations and findings at the hearing
and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver request bear the
burden of persuading the Administrator that the waiver request
should be denied.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1121.

The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a reasonable
evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the waiver
decision. As the court in MEMA I stated: ``here, too, if the
Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that the waiver should not
be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with unsupported
assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his waiver decision
set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.' '' \15\ Therefore, the
Administrator's burden is to act ``reasonably.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 1126.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. EPA's Administrative Process in Consideration of California's Yard
Trucks Regulation

    Upon receipt of CARB's request, EPA offered an opportunity for a
public hearing, and requested written comment on issues relevant to a
full section 209(e) authorization analysis, by publication of a Federal
Register notice on August 21, 2012.\17\ Specifically, we requested
comment on: (a) Whether CARB's determination that its standards, in the
aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) whether
California needs such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions, and (c) whether California's standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are consistent with section 209 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 77 FR 50502 (August 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received no comments or testimony in response to EPA's August
21, 2012 Federal Register notice. EPA offered an opportunity for public
hearing, related to CARB's authorization request, on September 20,
2012. No one notified EPA stating a desire to testify at the public
hearing and therefore no hearing was held. The written comment period
closed on October 22, 2012.

II. Discussion

A. California's Protectiveness Determination

    Section 209(e)(2)(i) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an
authorization if the agency finds that California was arbitrary and
capricious in its determination that its standards are, in the
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards. CARB's Board made a protectiveness
determination in Resolution 08-43, finding that its amendments will not
cause its nonroad engine emission standards, in the aggregate, to be
less protective of public health and welfare than applicable federal
standards.\18\ CARB presents that there is no basis for EPA to find
that the Board's determination is arbitrary and capricious since
California is the only governmental jurisdiction in the nation
entrusted with authority to adopt its own emission compliance
requirements for in-use nonroad vehicles and engines. CARB envisions
that nonroad yard truck fleets (and two-engine sweepers) will comply
with the emission compliance requirements by modernizing their fleets
through purchasing newer vehicles and engines and installing retrofit
PM filters that will achieve emission reductions equal to or greater
than the reductions that can be achieved under federal new engine
emission standards.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ CARB Resolution 08-43; see also CARB Resolution 10-44.
    \19\ CARB Authorization Request at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did not receive any comments challenging California's
protectiveness determination. Therefore, based on the record before us,
EPA finds that opponents of the authorization have not shown that
California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its
standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable federal standards.

B. Need for California Standards To Meet Compelling and Extraordinary
Conditions

    Section 209(e)(2)(ii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an
authorization if the agency finds that California ``does not need such
California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. .
. .'' This criterion restricts EPA's inquiry to whether California
needs its own mobile source pollution program to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions, and not whether any given standards are
necessary to meet such conditions.\20\ As discussed above, for more
than 40 years CARB has repeatedly demonstrated the need for its mobile
source emissions program to address compelling and extraordinary
conditions in California. In its Resolution 08-43, CARB affirmed its
longstanding position that California continues to need its own motor
vehicle and engine program to meet its serious air pollution
problems.\21\ Likewise, EPA has consistently recognized that California
continues to have the same ``geographical and climatic conditions that,
when combined with the large numbers and high concentrations of
automobiles, create serious pollution problems.'' \22\ Furthermore, no
commenter has presented any argument or evidence to suggest that
California no longer needs a separate mobile source emissions program
to address compelling and extraordinary conditions in California.
Therefore, EPA has determined that we cannot deny California an
authorization for its Yard Trucks Regulation under section
209(e)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 74 FR 32744, 32761 (July 8, 2009); 49 FR 18887, 18889-
18890 (May 3, 1984).
    \21\ CARB Resolution 08-43 and CARB Resolution 10-44.
    \22\ 49 FR 18887, 18890 (May 3, 1984); see also 76 FR 34693
(June 14, 2011), 74 FR 32744, 32763 (July 8, 2009), and 73 FR 52042
(September 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Section 209 of the Clean Air Act

    Section 209(e)(2)(iii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant
an authorization if California's standards and enforcement procedures
are not consistent with section 209. As described above, EPA has
historically evaluated this criterion for consistency with sections
209(a), 209(e)(1), and 209(b)(1)(C).

1. Consistency With Section 209(a)
    To be consistent with section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act,
California's Yard Trucks Regulation must not apply to new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. California's Yard Trucks
Regulation expressly applies only to in-use off-road yard trucks and
auxiliary engines in two-engine sweepers and does not apply to new
engines used in motor vehicles as defined by section 216(2) of the
Clean Air Act.\23\ No commenter presented otherwise. Based on the
evidence in the record, EPA cannot deny California's request on the
basis that California's Yard Trucks Regulation is not consistent with
section 209(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ CARB Authorization Request at 11-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Consistency With Section 209(e)(1)
    To be consistent with section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act,
California's Yard Trucks Regulation must not affect new farming or
construction vehicles or engines that are below 175 horsepower (hp), or
new locomotives or their engines. CARB presents that the regulation
specifically does not apply to locomotives and it further does not
apply to new farm and construction equipment with engines less than 175
horsepower hp.\24\ In addition, CARB notes that its regulation does not
immediately attempt to regulate new farm and construction equipment and
that under any compliance pathway a fleet is not required to take any
action on a vehicle less than 7 years old. CARB maintains that its in-
use regulations are consistent with the definition of new in EPA's
section 209(e) rule. No commenter presented otherwise. Based on the
evidence in the record, EPA cannot deny California's request on the
basis that California's Yard Trucks Regulation is not consistent with
section 209(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Consistency With Section 209(b)(1)(C)
    The requirement that California's standards be consistent with
section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act effectively requires
consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. California standards are
inconsistent with section 202(a) of the Act if there is inadequate
lead-time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet
those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within that timeframe. California's accompanying enforcement
procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if federal
and California test procedures conflicted such that the same engine
could not meet both the federal requirements and the California
requirements. The scope of EPA's review of whether California's action
is consistent with section 202(a) is narrow. The determination is
limited to whether those opposed to the authorization or waiver have
met their burden of establishing that California's standards are
technologically infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose
requirements inconsistent with the federal test procedures.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ MEMA I, 627, F.2d at 1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Technological Feasibility
    Congress has stated that the consistency requirement of section
202(a) relates to technological feasibility.\26\ Section 202(a)(2)
states, in part, that any regulation promulgated under its authority
``shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds
necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance
within such period.'' Section 202(a) thus requires the Administrator to
first determine whether adequate technology already exists; or if it
does not, whether there is adequate time to develop and apply the
technology before the standards go into effect. The latter scenario
also requires the Administrator to decide whether the cost of
developing and applying the technology within that time is feasible.
Previous EPA waivers are in accord with this position.\27\ For example,
a previous EPA waiver decision considered California's standards and
enforcement procedures to be consistent with section 202(a) because
adequate technology existed as well as adequate lead-time to implement
that technology.\28\ Subsequently, Congress has stated that, generally,
EPA's construction of the waiver provision has been consistent with
congressional intent.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 (1977).
    \27\ See, e.g., 49 FR 1887, 1895 (May 3, 1984); 43 FR 32182,
32183 (July 25, 1978); 41 FR 44209, 44213 (October 7, 1976).
    \28\ 41 FR 44209 (October 7, 1976).
    \29\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB presents that the technology required to comply with its Yard
Trucks Regulation is currently available, and that it has provided
sufficient lead-time, giving consideration to cost of compliance.\30\
CARB points to EPA's own analysis in the federal rule for these same
engines, but also separately concluded that fleet owners will be able
to absorb or pass compliance costs to their customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ CARB Authorization Request at 13-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did not receive any comments suggesting that CARB's standards
and test procedures are technologically infeasible. Based on the
evidence in the record, EPA cannot deny California's authorization
based on technological infeasibility.
b. Consistency of Certification Procedures
    California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures
would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the California test
procedures were to impose certification requirements inconsistent with
the federal certification requirements. Such inconsistency means that
manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and federal
testing requirements using the same test vehicle or engine.\31\ CARB
presents that the Yard Trucks Regulation raises no issue regarding test
procedure consistency because there are no additional test procedures
for engine manufacturers or fleet owners to meet beyond federal and
state certification testing for new engines.\32\ CARB also points out
that its retrofit verification program is a voluntary program available
to retrofit device manufacturers, and not directly required of fleet
owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978).
    \32\ CARB Authorization Request at 18, See 49 CFR parts 89 and
1039 and title 13, CCR, sections 2400 through 2427 and 2700 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received no comments suggesting that CARB's Yard Trucks
Regulation pose any test procedure consistency problem. Based on the
evidence in the record, EPA cannot find that CARB's testing procedures
are inconsistent with section 202(a). Consequently, EPA cannot deny
CARB's request based on this criterion.

D. Authorization Determination for California's Yard Trucks Regulation

    After a review of the information submitted by CARB and the record
for this authorization request, EPA finds that no basis exists to
demonstrate that authorization for California's Yard Trucks Regulation
should be denied based on any of the statutory criteria of section
209(e)(2). For this reason, EPA finds that an authorization for
California's Yard Trucks Regulation should be granted.

III. Decision

    The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California
section 209(e) authorizations to the Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation. After evaluating California's

Authorization Request, and the public record for this matter, EPA is
granting an authorization to California for its Yard Trucks Regulation.
    My decision will affect not only persons in California, but also
entities outside the State who must comply with California's
requirements. For this reason, I determine and find that this is a
final action of national applicability for purposes of section
307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act,
judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions
for review must be filed by July 23, 2013. Judicial review of this
final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings,
pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not
a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt
from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for
rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
    In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of
this action on small business entities.
    Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of
5 U.S.C. 804(3).

    Dated: May 16, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2013-12505 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


the segment within the HCA is between at least two RMVs or alternative
equivalent technologies. If any crossover or lateral pipe for commodity
receipts or deliveries connects to the replaced segment between the
upstream and downstream valves, the shut-off segment also extends to a
valve on the crossover connection(s) or lateral(s), such that, when all
valves are closed, there is no flow path for commodity to be
transported to the rupture site (except for residual liquids already in
the shut-off segment). Multiple segments that could affect HCAs or are
in HCAs may be contained within a single shut-off segment. All entirely
replaced onshore hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline segments,
as defined in Sec.  195.2, that could affect or are in an HCA must
include a minimum of one valve that meets the requirements of this
section and section 195.419. The operator is not required to select the
closest valve to the shut-off segment as the RMV or alternative
equivalent technology. An operator may use a manual pump station valve
at a continuously manned station as an alternative equivalent
technology. Such a manual valve used as an alternative equivalent
technology would not require a notification to PHMSA in accordance with
Sec.  195.18.
    (2) Shut-off segment valve spacing. Pipeline segments subject to
paragraph (a) of this section must be protected on the upstream and
downstream side with RMVs or alternative equivalent technologies. The
distance between RMVs or alternative equivalent technologies must not
exceed:
    (i) For pipeline segments carrying non-highly volatile liquids
(HVL): 15 miles, with a maximum distance not to exceed 7\1/2\ miles
from the endpoints of a shut-off segment: or
    (ii) For pipeline segments carrying HVLs: 7\1/2\ miles. The maximum
valve spacing intervals for these valves may be increased by 1.25 times
the spacing distance, up to a 9\3/8\-mile spacing at an endpoint,
provided the operator notify PHMSA in accordance with Sec.  195.260
(g).
    (3) Laterals. Laterals extending from shut-off segments that
contribute less than 5 percent of the total shut-off segment volume may
have RMVs or alternative equivalent technologies that meet the
actuation requirements of this section at locations other than mainline
receipt/delivery points, as long as all of these laterals contributing
hazardous liquid volumes to the shut-off segment do not contribute more
than 5 percent of the total shut-off segment volume, based upon maximum
flow volume at the operating pressure. A check valve may be used as an
alternative equivalent technology where it is positioned to stop flow
into the lateral. Check valves used as an alternative equivalent
technology in accordance with this paragraph are not subject to Sec.
195.419 but must be inspected, operated, and remediated in accordance
with Sec.  195.420, including for closure and leakage, to ensure
operational reliability. An operator using a such a valve as an
alternative equivalent technology must submit a request to PHMSA in
accordance with Sec.  195.18.
    (4) Crossovers. An operator may use a manual valve as an
alternative equivalent technology for a crossover connection if, during
normal operations, the valve is closed to prevent the flow of hazardous
liquid or carbon dioxide with a locking device or other means designed
to prevent the opening of the valve by persons other than those
authorized by the operator. The operator must document that the valve
has been closed and locked in accordance with the operator's lock-out
and tag-out procedures to prevent the flow of hazardous liquid or
carbon dioxide. An operator using a such a valve as an alternative
equivalent technology must submit a request to PHMSA in accordance with
Sec.  195.18.
    (c) Manual operation upon identification of a rupture. Operators
using a manual valve as an alternative equivalent technology pursuant
to paragraph (a) of this section must develop and implement operating
procedures and appropriately designate and locate nearby personnel to
ensure valve shut-off in accordance with this section and Sec.
195.419. Manual operation of valves must include time for the assembly
of necessary operating personnel, the acquisition of necessary tools
and equipment, driving time under heavy traffic conditions and at the
posted speed limit, walking time to access the valve, and time to
manually shut off all valves, not to exceed the response time in Sec.
195.419(b).

0
23. Section 195.419 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  195.419   Valve capabilities.

    (a) Scope. The requirements in this section apply to rupture-
mitigation valves (RMV), as defined in Sec.  195.2, or alternative
equivalent technology, installed pursuant to Sec. Sec.  195.258 and
195.418.
    (b) Rupture identification and valve shut-off time. If an operator
observes or is notified of a release of hazardous liquid or carbon
dioxide that may be representative of an unintentional or uncontrolled
release event meeting a notification of potential rupture (see
Sec. Sec.  195.2 and 195.417), including any unexplained flow rate
changes, pressure changes, equipment functions, or other pipeline
instrumentation indications observed by the operator, the operator
must, as soon as practicable but within 30 minutes of rupture
identification (see Sec.  195.402(e)(4)), identify the rupture and
fully close any RMVs or alternative equivalent technologies necessary
to minimize the volume of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide released
from a pipeline and mitigate the consequences of a rupture.
    (c) Valve shut-off capability. A valve must have the actuation
capability necessary to close an RMV or alternative equivalent
technology to mitigate the consequences of a rupture in accordance with
the requirements of this section.
    (d) Valve monitoring and operational capabilities. An RMV, as
defined in Sec.  195.2, or alternative equivalent technology, must be
capable of being monitored or controlled by either remote or onsite
personnel as follows:
    (1) Operated during normal, abnormal, and emergency operating
conditions;
    (2) Monitored for valve status (i.e., open, closed, or partial
closed/open), upstream pressure, and downstream pressure. For automatic
shut-off valves

(ASV), an operator does not need to monitor remotely a valve's status
if the operator has the capability to monitor pressures or flow rate
within each pipeline segment located between RMVs or alternative
equivalent technologies to identify and locate a rupture. Pipeline
segments that use an alternative equivalent technology must have the
capability to monitor pressures and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide
flow rates on the pipeline in order to identify and locate a rupture;
and
    (3) Have a back-up power source to maintain supervisory control and
data acquisition (SCADA) systems or other remote communications for
remote-control valve (RCV) or ASV operational status or be monitored
and controlled by on-site personnel.
    (e) Monitoring of valve shut-off response status. The position and
operational status of an RMV must be appropriately monitored through
electronic communication with remote instrumentation or other
equivalent means. An operator does not need to monitor remotely an
ASV's status if the operator has the capability to monitor pressures or
hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide s flow rate on the pipeline to
identify and locate a rupture.
    (f) Flow modeling for automatic shut-off valves. Prior to using an
ASV as an RMV, the operator must conduct flow modeling for the shut-off
segment and any laterals that feed the shut-off segment, so that the
valve will close within 30 minutes or less following rupture
identification, consistent with the operator's procedures, and in
accordance with Sec.  195.2 and this section. The flow modeling must
include the anticipated maximum, normal, or any other flow volumes,
pressures, or other operating conditions that may be encountered during
the year, not to exceed a period of 15 months, and it must be modeled
for the flow between the RMVs or alternative equivalent technologies,
and any looped pipelines or hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide receipt
tie-ins. If operating conditions change that could affect the ASV set
pressures and the 30-minute valve closure time following a notification
of potential rupture, as defined at Sec.  195.2, an operator must
conduct a new flow model and reset the ASV set pressures prior to the
next review for ASV set pressures in accordance with Sec.  195.420. The
flow model must include a time/pressure chart for the segment
containing the ASV if a rupture event occurs. An operator must conduct
this flow modeling prior to making flow condition changes in a manner
that could render the 30-minute valve closure time unachievable.
    (g) Pipelines not affecting HCAs. For pipeline segments that are
not in a high-consequence area (HCA) or that could not affect an HCA,
an operator submitting a notification pursuant to Sec. Sec.  195.18 and
195.258 for use of manual valves as an alternative equivalent
technology may also request an exemption from the valve operation
requirements of Sec.  195.419(b).

0
24. In Sec.  195.420, paragraph (b) is revised and paragraphs (d)
through (g) are added to read as follows:

Sec.  195.420   Valve maintenance.

* * * * *
    (b) Each operator must, at least twice each calendar year, but at
intervals not exceeding 7\1/2\ months, inspect each valve to determine
that it is functioning properly. Each rupture-mitigation valve (RMV),
as defined in Sec.  195.2, or alternative equivalent technology that is
installed under Sec.  195.258(c) or Sec.  195.418, must also be
partially operated. Operators are not required to close the valve fully
during the drill; a minimum 25 percent valve closure is sufficient to
demonstrate compliance, unless the operator has operational information
that requires an additional closure percentage for maintaining
reliability.
* * * * *
    (d) For each remote-control valve (RCV) installed in accordance
with Sec.  195.258(c) or Sec.  195.418, an operator must conduct a
point-to-point verification between SCADA system displays and the
installed valves, sensors, and communications equipment, in accordance
with Sec.  195.446(c) and (e).
    (e) For each alternative equivalent technology installed under
Sec.  195.258(c) or (d) or Sec.  195.418(a) that is manually or locally
operated (i.e., not an RMV, as that term is defined in Sec.  195.2):
    (1) Operators must achieve a response time of 30 minutes or less,
as required by Sec.  195.419(b), through an initial drill and through
periodic validation as required by paragraph (e)(2) of this section. An
operator must review each phase of the drill response and document the
results to validate the total response time, including the
identification of a rupture, and valve shut-off time as being less than
or equal to 30 minutes after rupture identification.
    (2) Within each pipeline system, and within each operating or
maintenance field work unit, operators must randomly select an
authorized rupture-mitigation alternative equivalent technology for an
annual 30-minute-total response time validation drill simulating worst-
case conditions for that location to ensure compliance with Sec.
195.419. Operators are not required to close the alternative equivalent
technology fully during the drill; a minimum 25 percent valve closure
is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the drill requirements
unless the operator has operational information that requires an
additional closure percentage for maintaining reliability. The response
drill must occur at least once each calendar year, at intervals not to
exceed 15 months. Operators must include in their written procedures
the method they use to randomly select which alternative equivalent
technology is tested in accordance with this paragraph.
    (3) If the 30-minute-maximum response time cannot be achieved in
the drill, the operator must revise response efforts to achieve
compliance with Sec.  195.419 no later than 12 months after the drill.
Alternative valve shut-off measures must be in accordance with
paragraph (f) of this section within 7 days of the drill.
    (4) Based on the results of the response-time drills, the operator
must include lessons learned in:
    (i) Training and qualifications programs;
    (ii) Design, construction, testing, maintenance, operating, and
emergency procedures manuals; and
    (iii) Any other areas identified by the operator as needing
improvement.
    (f) Each operator must implement remedial measures as follows to
correct any valve installed on an onshore pipeline in accordance with
Sec.  195.258(c), or an RMV or alternative equivalent technology
installed in accordance with Sec.  195.418, that is indicated to be
inoperable or unable to maintain effective shut-off:
    (1) Repair or replace the valve as soon as practicable but no later
than 12 months after finding that the valve is inoperable or unable to
maintain shut-off. An operator may request an extension of the
compliance deadline requirements of this section if it can demonstrate
to PHMSA, in accordance with the notification procedures in Sec.
195.18, that repairing or replacing a valve within 12 months would be
economically, technically, or operationally infeasible; and
    (2) Designate an alternative compliant valve within 7 calendar days
of the finding while repairs are being made and document an interim
response plan to maintain safety. Alternative compliant valves are not
required to

comply with valve spacing requirements of this part.
    (g) An operator using an ASV as an RMV, in accordance with
Sec. Sec.  195.2, 195.260, 195.418, and 195.419, must document, in
accordance with Sec.  195.419(f), and confirm the ASV shut-in pressures
on a calendar year basis not to exceed 15 months. ASV shut-in set
pressures must be proven and reset individually at each ASV, as
required by Sec.  195.419(f), at least each calendar year, but at
intervals not to exceed 15 months.

0
25. In Sec.  195.452, paragraph (i)(4) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.452   Pipeline integrity management in high consequence
areas.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRD). If an operator
determines that an EFRD is needed on a pipeline segment that is located
in, or which could affect, a high-consequence area (HCA) in the event
of a hazardous liquid pipeline release, an operator must install the
EFRD. In making this determination, an operator must, at least,
evaluate the following factors--the swiftness of leak detection and
pipeline shutdown capabilities, the type of commodity carried, the rate
of potential leakage, the volume that can be released, topography or
pipeline profile, the potential for ignition, proximity to power
sources, location of nearest response personnel, specific terrain
within the HCA or between the pipeline segment and the HCA it could
affect, and benefits expected by reducing the spill size. An RMV
installed under this paragraph must meet all of the other applicable
requirements in this part.
    (i) Where EFRDs are installed on pipeline segments in HCAs and that
could affect HCAs with diameters of 6 inches or greater and that are
placed into service or that have had 2 or more miles of pipe replaced
within 5 contiguous miles within a 24-month period after April 10,
2023, the location, installation, actuation, operation, and maintenance
of such EFRDs (including valve actuators, personnel response,
operational control centers, supervisory control and data acquisition
(SCADA), communications, and procedures) must meet the design,
operation, testing, maintenance, and rupture-mitigation requirements of
Sec. Sec.  195.258, 195.260, 195.402, 195.418, 195.419, and 195.420.
    (ii) The EFRD analysis and assessments specified in this paragraph
(i)(4) must be completed prior to placing into service all onshore
pipelines with diameters of 6 inches or greater and that are
constructed or that have had 2 or more miles of pipe within any 5
contiguous miles within any 24-month period replaced after April 10,
2023. Implementation of EFRD findings for RMVs must meet Sec.  195.418.
    (iii) An operator may request an exemption from the compliance
deadline requirements of this section if it can demonstrate to PHMSA,
in accordance with the notification procedures in Sec.  195.18, that
installing an EFRD by that compliance deadline would be economically,
technically, or operationally infeasible.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 31, 2022, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Tristan H. Brown,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-07133 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65592-65593]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26541]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 22e-3, OMB Control No. 3235-0658, SEC File No. 270-603.

    Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Section 22(e) of the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-22(e)]
(``Act'') generally prohibits funds, including money market funds, from
suspending the right of redemption, and from postponing the payment or
satisfaction upon redemption of any redeemable security for more than
seven days. The provision was designed to prevent funds and their
investment advisers from interfering with the redemption rights of
shareholders for improper purposes, such as the preservation of
management fees. Although section 22(e) permits funds to postpone the
date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption for up to seven days,
it does not permit funds to suspend the right of redemption for any
amount of time, absent certain specified circumstances or a Commission
order.
    Rule 22e-3 under the Act [17 CFR 270.22e-3] exempts money market
funds from section 22(e) to permit them to suspend redemptions in order
to facilitate an orderly liquidation of the fund. Specifically, rule
22e-3 permits a money market fund to suspend redemptions and postpone
the payment of proceeds pending board-approved liquidation proceedings
if: (i) The fund's board of directors, including a majority of
disinterested directors, determines pursuant to Sec.  270.2a-
7(c)(8)(ii)(C) that the extent of the deviation between the fund's
amortized cost price per share and its current net asset value per
share calculated using available market quotations (or an appropriate
substitute that reflects current market conditions) may result in
material dilution or other unfair results to investors or existing
shareholders; (ii) the fund's board of directors, including a majority
of disinterested directors, irrevocably approves the liquidation of the
fund; and (iii) the fund, prior to suspending redemptions, notifies the
Commission of its decision to liquidate and suspend redemptions. Rule
22e-3 also provides an exemption from section 22(e) for registered
investment companies that own shares of a money market fund pursuant to
section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act (``conduit funds''), if the underlying
money market fund has suspended redemptions pursuant to the rule. A
conduit fund that suspend redemptions in reliance on the exemption
provided by rule 22e-3 is required to provide prompt notice of the
suspension of redemptions to the Commission. Notices required by the
rule must be provided by electronic mail, directed to the attention of
the Director of the Division of Investment Management or the Director's
designee.\1\ Compliance with the notification requirement is mandatory
for money market funds and conduit funds that rely on rule 22e-3 to
suspend redemptions and postpone payment of proceeds pending a
liquidation, and are not kept confidential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See rule 22e-3(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff estimates that, on average, one money market fund
would break the buck and liquidate every six years.\2\ In addition,
Commission staff estimate that there are an average of two conduit
funds that may be invested in a money market fund that breaks the
buck.\3\ Commission staff further estimate that a money market fund or
conduit fund would spend approximately one hour of an in-house
attorney's time to prepare and submit the notice required by the rule.
Given these estimates, the total annual burden of the notification
requirement of rule 22e-3 for all money market funds and conduit funds
would be approximately 30 minutes,\4\ at a cost of $189.\5\ The
estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or
even

a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and
forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This estimate is based upon the Commission's experience with
the frequency with which money market funds have historically
required sponsor support. Although the vast majority of money market
fund sponsors have supported their money market funds in times of
market distress, for purposes of this estimate Commission staff
conversatively estimates that one or more sponsors may not provide
support.
    \3\ These estimates are based on a review of filings with the
Commission.
    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (1
hour / 6 years) = 10 minutes per year for each fund and conduit fund
that is required to provide notice under the rule. 10 minutes per
year x 3 (combined number of affected funds and conduit funds) = 30
minutes.
    \5\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: $378/
hour x 30 minutes = $189. The estimated hourly wages used in this
PRA analysis were derived from reports prepared by the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association, modified to account for
an 1800-hour work year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead. See Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association, Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the
rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days after this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 24, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26541 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 2440]
[FR Doc No: 2011-594]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection(s): Flight
Engineers and Flight Navigators.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on September 22, 2010, vol. 75, no. 183, page 57828-57829.
Information collected is used to determine certification eligibility of
Flight Engineers and Flight Navigators.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 14, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0007.
    Title: Flight Engineers and Flight Navigators.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8400-3.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: FAA Form 8400-3, Application for an Airman Certificate
and/or Rating (for flight engineer and flight navigator) and
applications for approval of related training courses are submitted to
FAA for evaluation. The information is reviewed to determine applicant
eligibility and compliance with prescribed provisions of FAR Part 63,
Certification: Flight Crewmembers Other Than Pilots.
    Respondents: Approximately 1,036 flight engineers and flight
navigators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 498 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-594 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56750-56751]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23531]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0489; FRL-9463-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the EPA is planning
to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This ICR is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2012. Before submitting
the ICR to OMB for review and approval, the EPA is soliciting comments
on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described
below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0489, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air Emissions Reporting Requirements, Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0489, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code:
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please
include two copies.
     Hand Delivery: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0489, EPA Docket
Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0489. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and
be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly D. Paylor, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Mail
Code C339-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541-
5474, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    The EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0489, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA East Building Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202) 566-1742.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What information is the EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the EPA specifically solicits comments and
information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, the EPA is requesting comments
from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25 people) on
examples of specific additional efforts that the EPA could make to
reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this
collection.

What should I consider when I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the
docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the
first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Federal Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0489.
    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
generally State, territorial and local government air quality
managements programs. Tribal governments are not affected unless they
have sought and obtained treatment as state status under the Tribal
Authority Rule and on that basis, are authorized to implement and
enforce the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements rule.
    Title: Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (Renewal) .
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No.2170.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0580.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on April 30,
2012. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in
the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the
related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of
OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40
CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The EPA promulgated the Air Emissions Reporting
Requirements (AERR) (40 CFR part 51 subpart A) to coordinate emissions
inventory reporting requirements with existing requirements of the
Clean Air Act and 1990 Amendments. Under this reporting, 55 State and
Territorial air quality agencies, including the District of Columbia,
as well as an estimated 49 local air quality agencies, must submit
emissions data every three years for all point, non-point, on-road
mobile, and non-road mobile sources of volatile organic compounds,
oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter
less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter, particulate matter
less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter, ammonia, and lead.
    In addition, the air quality agencies must submit annually emission
data for point sources emitting at greater than specified levels of
those pollutants. The data supplied to the emission reporting
requirement is needed so that the EPA can compile and make available a
national inventory of air pollutant emissions. A comprehensive
inventory updated at regular intervals is essential to allow the EPA to
fulfill its mandate to monitor and plan for the attainment and
maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards established
for criteria pollutants.
    This information is collected under 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C 7401-
7671q, and the authority of the AERR. This information is mandatory
and, as specified, cannot be treated as confidential by the EPA.
    The number and frequency of data collection and submittal is
expected to remain the same for 2011-2014.
    Burden: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is estimated to average 42 hours per
response. 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
which have subsequently changed; 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.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 104.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 51,095.
    Estimated total annual costs: $4,060,576. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $4,060,576 and an estimated cost of $0 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is no significant change of hours in the ICR currently
approved by OMB.

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

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

    Dated: September 8, 2011.
Mary Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-23531 Filed 9-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P