[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42256-42263]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15040]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0303; FRL-9948-13-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Kansas; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a December 1, 2015, State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submittal from Kansas concerning allocations of Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emission allowances. Under CSAPR, large
electricity generating units in Kansas are subject to a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) requiring the units to participate in CSAPR's
Federal trading program for annual emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX). This action approves Kansas's adoption into its SIP
of state regulations establishing state-determined allocations to
replace EPA's default allocations to Kansas units of CSAPR allowances
for annual NOX emissions for 2017 through 2019. EPA is
approving the SIP revision because it meets the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's regulations for approval of an
abbreviated SIP revision replacing EPA's default allocations of CSAPR
emission allowances with state-determined allocations. Approval of this
SIP revision does not alter any provision of CSAPR's Federal trading
program for annual NOX emissions as applied to Kansas units
other than the allowance allocation provisions, and the FIP requiring
the units to participate in the trading program (as modified by the SIP
revision) remains in place. The approval is being issued as a direct
final rule without a prior proposed rule because EPA views it as
uncontroversial and does not anticipate adverse comment.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective August 15, 2016,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 29,
2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2016-0303, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry Gonzalez, Air Planning and
Development Branch, Air and Waste Management Division, EPA Region 7,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7041; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions
III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions
IV. Kansas's SIP Submittal and EPA's Analysis
    A. Kansas's SIP Submittal
    B. EPA's Analysis of Kansas' Submittal
    1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP Submittal
    2. Methodology Covering All Allowances Potentially Requiring
Allocation
    3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will Not Exceed the State
Budget
    4. Timely Submission of State-Determined Allocations to EPA
    5. No Changes to Allocations Already Submitted to EPA or
Recorded
    6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal Trading Program
Provisions
V. EPA's Action on Kansas' Submittal

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the SIP
for Kansas concerning allocations of allowances used in the CSAPR \1\
Federal trading program for annual emissions of NOX. Large
electricity generating units in Kansas are subject to a CSAPR FIP that
requires the units to participate in the Federal CSAPR NOX
Annual Trading Program.\2\ Each of CSAPR's Federal trading programs
includes default provisions governing the allocation among
participating units of emission allowances used for compliance under
that program. CSAPR also provides a process for the submission and
approval of SIP revisions to replace EPA's default allocations with
state-determined allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011), (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and
52.39 and subparts AAAAA through DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97).
    \2\ EPA has proposed to replace the terms ``Transport Rule'' and
``TR'' in the text of the Code of Federal Regulations with the
updated terms ``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule'' and ``CSAPR.'' 80
FR 75706, 75759 (December 3, 2015). Except where otherwise noted,
EPA uses the updated terms here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIP revision approved in this action incorporates into Kansas'
SIP state regulations establishing state-determined allowance
allocations to replace EPA's default allocations to Kansas units of
CSAPR NOX Annual allowances issued for the control periods
in 2017 through 2019. EPA is approving the SIP revision because it
meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for approval of
an abbreviated SIP revision replacing EPA's default allocations of
CSAPR emission allowances with state-determined allocations. Approval
of this SIP revision does not alter any provision of the CSAPR
NOX Annual Trading Program as applied to Kansas units other
than the allowance allocation provisions, and the FIP requiring those
units to participate in the program (as modified by this SIP revision)
remains in place. Because the SIP revision addresses only the control
periods in 2017 through 2019, absent submission and approval of a
further SIP revision, allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual
allowances for control periods in 2020 and later years will be made
pursuant to the default allocation provisions.
    Large electricity generating units in Kansas are also subject to an
additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate in the Federal CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 Trading Program. Kansas's SIP submittal does not
seek to replace the default allocations of CSAPR SO2 Group 2
allowances to Kansas units. Approval of this SIP revision concerning
another CSAPR trading program has no effect on the CSAPR SO2
Group 2 Trading Program as applied to Kansas units, and the FIP
requiring the units to participate in that program remains in place.
    Section II of this document summarizes relevant aspects of the
CSAPR Federal trading programs and FIPs as well as the range of
opportunities states have to submit SIP revisions to modify or replace
the FIP requirements while continuing to rely on CSAPR's trading
programs to address the states' obligations to mitigate interstate air
pollution. Section III describes the specific conditions for approval
of such SIP revisions. Section IV contains EPA's analysis of Kansas'
SIP submittal, and section V sets forth EPA's action on the submittal.
    We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed
rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate
no adverse comment. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposed rule to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments
are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on
this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives
adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take
effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final
rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    EPA issued CSAPR in July 2011 to address the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate transport of air
pollution. As amended, CSAPR requires twenty-eight Eastern states to
limit their statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX
in order to mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting
other states' ability to attain or maintain three National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS): The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The emissions limitations are defined in terms
of maximum statewide ``budgets'' for emissions of annual
SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season
NOX by each covered state's large electricity generating
units. The budgets are implemented in two phases of generally
increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets applying to emissions
in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 2017
and later years. As a mechanism for achieving compliance with the
emissions limitations, CSAPR established four Federal emissions trading
programs: A program for annual NOX emissions, a program for
ozone-season NOX emissions, and two geographically separate
programs for annual SO2 emissions. CSAPR also established up
to three FIPs applicable to the large electricity generating units in
each covered state. Each CSAPR FIP requires a state's units to
participate in one of the four CSAPR trading programs.

    CSAPR includes provisions under which states may submit and EPA
will approve SIP revisions to modify or replace the CSAPR FIP
requirements while allowing states to continue to meet their transport-
related obligations using either CSAPR's Federal emissions trading
programs or state emissions trading programs integrated with the
Federal programs.\3\ Through such a SIP revision, a state may replace
EPA's default provisions for allocating emission allowances among the
state's units, employing any state-selected methodology to allocate or
auction the allowances, subject to timing conditions and limits on
overall allowance quantities. In the case of CSAPR's Federal trading
program for ozone-season NOX emissions (or an integrated
state trading program), a state may also expand trading program
applicability to include certain smaller electricity generating units.
However, no emissions budget increases or other substantive changes to
the trading program provisions are allowed. If a state wants to replace
CSAPR FIP requirements with SIP requirements under which the state's
units participate in a state trading program that is integrated with
and identical to the federal trading program even as to the allocation
and applicability provisions, the state may submit a SIP revision for
that purpose as well. A state whose units are subject to multiple CSAPR
FIPs and Federal trading programs may submit SIP revisions to modify or
replace the requirements under either some or all of those FIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the ability to
submit SIP revisions to meet their transport-related obligations
using mechanisms other than the CSAPR Federal trading programs or
integrated state trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States can submit two basic forms of CSAPR-related SIP revisions
effective for emissions control periods in 2017 or later years.\4\
Specific conditions for approval of each form of SIP revision are set
forth in the CSAPR regulations, as described in section III below.
Under the first alternative--an ``abbreviated'' SIP revision--a state
may submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces the default
allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions of a CSAPR Federal
trading program for the state.\5\ Approval of an abbreviated SIP
revision leaves the corresponding CSAPR FIP and all other provisions of
the relevant Federal trading program in place for the state's units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CSAPR also provides for a third, more streamlined form of
SIP revision that is effective only for control periods in 2016 and
is not relevant here. See Sec.  52.38(a)(3), (b)(3); Sec.  52.39(d),
(g).
    \5\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4), (b)(4); Sec.  52.39(e), (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the second alternative--a ``full'' SIP revision--a state may
submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces a CSAPR Federal
trading program for the state with a state trading program integrated
with the Federal trading program, so long as the state trading program
is substantively identical to the Federal trading program or does not
substantively differ from the Federal trading program except as
discussed above with regard to the allowance allocation and/or
applicability provisions.\6\ For purposes of a full SIP revision, a
state may either adopt state rules with complete trading program
language, incorporate the Federal trading program language into its
state rules by reference (with appropriate conforming changes), or
employ a combination of these approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Sec.  52.38(a)(5), (b)(5); Sec.  52.39(f), (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR regulations identify several important consequences and
limitations associated with approval of a full SIP revision. First,
upon EPA's approval of a full SIP revision as correcting the deficiency
in the state's SIP that was the basis for a particular CSAPR FIP, the
obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR Federal trading
program is automatically eliminated for units subject to the state's
jurisdiction without the need for a separate EPA withdrawal action, so
long as EPA's approval of the SIP is full and unconditional.\7\ Second,
approval of a full SIP revision does not terminate the obligation to
participate in the corresponding CSAPR Federal trading program for any
units located in any Indian country within the borders of the state,
and if and when a unit is located in Indian country within a state's
borders, EPA may modify the SIP approval to exclude from the SIP, and
include in the surviving CSAPR FIP instead, certain trading program
provisions that apply jointly to units in the state and to units in
Indian country within the state's borders.\8\ Finally, if at the time a
full SIP revision is approved EPA has already started recording
allocations of allowances for a given control period to a state's
units, the Federal trading program provisions authorizing EPA to
complete the process of allocating and recording allowances for that
control period to those units will continue to apply, unless EPA's
approval of the SIP revision provides otherwise.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Sec.  52.38(a)(6), (b)(6); Sec.  52.39(j).
    \8\ Sec.  52.38(a)(5)(iv)-(v), (a)(6), (b)(5)(v)-(vi), (b)(6);
Sec.  52.39(f)(4)-(5), (i)(4)-(5), (j).
    \9\ Sec.  52.38(a)(7), (b)(7); Sec.  52.39(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain CSAPR Phase 2 emissions budgets have been remanded to EPA
for reconsideration.\10\ However, the CSAPR trading programs remain in
effect and all CSAPR emissions budgets likewise remain in effect
pending EPA final action to address the remands. Neither of the CSAPR
emissions budgets applicable to Kansas units has been remanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, EPA proposed to update CSAPR to address Eastern states'
interstate air pollution mitigation obligations with regard to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Among other things, the proposed rule would establish a
FIP requiring Kansas units to participate in the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Trading Program and would make technical corrections and
nomenclature changes throughout the CSAPR regulations, including the
CSAPR FIPs at 40 CFR part 52 and the CSAPR Federal trading program
regulations for annual NOX, ozone-season NOX, and
SO2 emissions at 40 CFR part 97.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 80 FR 75706, 75710, 75757 (December 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    Each CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP revision must meet the
following general submittal conditions:
     Timeliness and completeness of SIP submittal. If a state
wants to replace the default allowance allocation or applicability
provisions of a CSAPR Federal trading program, the complete SIP
revision must be submitted to EPA by December 1 of the year before the
deadlines described below for submitting allocation or auction amounts
to EPA for the first control period for which the state wants to
replace the default allocation and/or applicability provisions.\12\
(This SIP submission deadline is inoperative in the case of a SIP
revision that seeks only to replace a CSAPR FIP and Federal trading
program with a SIP and a substantively identical state trading program
integrated with the Federal trading program.) The SIP submittal
completeness criteria in section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51
also apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(vi), (b)(4)(iii),
(b)(5)(vii); Sec.  52.39(e)(2), (f)(6), (h)(2), (i)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related
abbreviated or full SIP seeking to address the allocation or auction of
emission allowances must meet the following further conditions:

     Methodology covering all allowances potentially requiring
allocation. For each Federal trading program addressed by a SIP
revision, the SIP revision's allowance allocation or auction
methodology must replace both the Federal program's default allocations
to existing units \13\ at 40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.511(a), 97.611(a), or
97.711(a), as applicable, and the Federal trading program's provisions
for allocating allowances from the new unit set-aside (NUSA) for the
state at 40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and 97.412(a), 97.511(b)(1) and 97.512(a),
97.611(b)(1) and 97.612(a), or 97.711(b)(1) and 97.712(a), as
applicable.\14\ In the case of a state with Indian country within its
borders, while the SIP revision may neither alter nor assume the
Federal program's provisions for administering the Indian country NUSA
for the state, the SIP revision must include procedures addressing the
disposition of any otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian
country NUSA that may be made available for allocation by the state
after EPA has carried out the Indian country NUSA allocation
procedures.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In the context of the approval conditions for CSAPR-related
SIP revisions, an ``existing unit'' is a unit for which EPA has
determined default allowance allocations (which could be allocations
of zero allowances) in the rulemakings establishing and amending
CSAPR. A spreadsheet showing EPA's default allocations to existing
units is posted at www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/techinfo.html.
    \14\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(i), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(ii);
Sec.  52.39(e)(1), (f)(1), (h)(1), (i)(1).
    \15\ See Sec. Sec.  97.412(b)(10)(ii), 97.512(b)(10)(ii),
97.612(b)(10)(ii), 97.712(b)(10)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Assurance that total allocations will not exceed the state
budget. For each Federal trading program addressed by a SIP revision,
the total amount of allowances auctioned or allocated for each control
period under the SIP revision (prior to the addition by EPA of any
unallocated allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the state) may
not exceed the state's emissions budget for the control period less the
sum of the amount of any Indian country NUSA for the state for the
control period and any allowances already allocated to the state's
units for the control period and recorded by EPA.\16\ Under its SIP
revision, a state is free to not allocate allowances to some or all
potentially affected units, to allocate or auction allowances to
entities other than potentially affected units, or to allocate or
auction fewer than the maximum permissible quantity of allowances and
retire the remainder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(5)(i)(A), (b)(4)(ii)(A),
(b)(5)(ii)(A); Sec.  52.39(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i),
(i)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Timely submission of state-determined allocations to EPA.
The SIP revision must require the state to submit to EPA the amounts of
any allowances allocated or auctioned to each unit for each control
period (other than allowances initially set aside in the state's
allocation or auction process and later allocated or auctioned to such
units from the set-aside amount) by the following deadlines.\17\ Note
that the submission deadlines differ for amounts allocated or auctioned
to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes and amounts
allocated or auctioned to other units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i)(B)-(C), (a)(5)(i)(B)-(C),
(b)(4)(ii)(B)-(C), (b)(5)(ii)(B)-(C); Sec.  52.39(e)(1)(ii)-(iii),
(f)(1)(ii)-(iii), (h)(1)(ii)-(iii), (i)(1)(ii)-(iii).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Deadline for
                                   Year of the      submission to EPA of
             Units                control period       allocations or
                                                      auction results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing......................  2017 and 2018....  June 1, 2016.
                                2019 and 2020....  June 1, 2017.
                                2021 and 2022....  June 1, 2018.
                                2023 and later     June 1 of the fourth
                                 years.             year before the year
                                                    of the control
                                                    period.
Other.........................  All years........  July 1 of the year of
                                                    the control period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No changes to allocations already submitted to EPA or
recorded. The SIP revision must not provide for any change to the
amounts of allowances allocated or auctioned to any unit after those
amounts are submitted to EPA or any change to any allowance allocation
determined and recorded by EPA under the Federal trading program
regulations.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(5)(i)(D), (b)(4)(ii)(D),
(b)(5)(ii)(D); Sec.  52.39(e)(1)(iv), (f)(1)(iv), (h)(1)(iv),
(i)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No other substantive changes to Federal trading program
provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other
trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that
also expands program applicability as described below.\19\ Any new
definitions adopted in the SIP revision (in addition to the Federal
trading program's definitions) may apply only for purposes of the SIP
revision's allocation or auction provisions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), (b)(5); Sec.  52.39(e),
(f), (h), (i).
    \20\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(iii);
Sec.  52.39(e)(1), (f)(2), (h)(1), (i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related
abbreviated or full SIP revision seeking to expand applicability under
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program (or an integrated
state trading program) must meet the following further conditions:
     Only electricity generating units with nameplate capacity
of at least 15 MWe. The SIP revision may expand applicability only to
additional fossil fuel-fired boilers or combustion turbines serving
generators producing electricity for sale, and only by lowering the
generator nameplate capacity threshold used to determine whether a
particular boiler or combustion turbine serving a particular generator
is a potentially affected unit. The nameplate capacity threshold
adopted in the SIP revision may not be less than 15 MWe.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Sec.  52.38(b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No other substantive changes to Federal trading program
provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other
trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that
also addresses the allocation or auction of emission allowances as
described above.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Sec.  52.38(b)(4), (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general submittal conditions and the other
applicable conditions described above, a CSAPR-related full SIP
revision must meet the following further conditions:
     Complete, substantively identical trading program
provisions. The SIP revision must adopt complete state trading program
regulations substantively identical to the complete Federal trading
program regulations at 40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435, 97.502 through
97.535, 97.602 through 97.635, or 97.702 through 97.735, as applicable,
except as described above in the case of a SIP revision that seeks to
replace the default allowance allocation and/or applicability
provisions.
     Only non-substantive substitutions for the term ``State.''
The SIP revision may substitute the name of the state for the term
``State'' as used in the Federal trading program regulations, but only
to the extent that EPA determines that the substitutions do not
substantively

change the trading program regulations.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Sec.  52.38(a)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv); Sec.  52.39(f)(3),
(i)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Exclusion of provisions addressing units in Indian
country. The SIP revision may not include references to or impose
requirements on any unit in any Indian country within the state's
borders and must not include the Federal trading program provisions
governing allocation of allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the
state.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Sec.  52.38(a)(5)(iv), (b)(5)(v); Sec.  52.39(f)(4),
(i)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Kansas's SIP Submittal and EPA's Analysis

A. Kansas's SIP Submittal

    In the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA determined that air pollution
transported from Kansas unlawfully affected other states' ability to
attain or maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\25\ Kansas
units meeting the CSAPR applicability criteria are consequently subject
to CSAPR FIPs that require participation in the CSAPR NOX
Annual Trading Program and the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading
Program.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 76 FR 48208, 48213 (August 8, 2011).
    \26\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(2); Sec.  52.39(c); Sec.  52.882(a); Sec.
52.883.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 1, 2015, Kansas submitted to EPA an abbreviated SIP
revision that, if approved, would replace the default allowance
allocation provisions of the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading
Program for the state's EGUs for the control periods in 2017 through
2019 with provisions establishing state-determined allocations for
those control periods but that would leave the corresponding CSAPR FIP
and all other provisions of that trading program in place. The SIP
submittal generally consists of a duly adopted state rule, K.A.R. 28-
19-274 (Nitrogen oxides; allocations), which in turn adopts by
reference a document entitled ``TR NOX annual allowance
allocations for 2017, 2018, and 2019,'' dated July 17, 2015. The latter
document contains tables establishing fixed amounts of allowances to be
allocated to specified Kansas electricity generating units under the
provisions of the state rule. For each of the years 2017, 2018, and
2019, there is a table with allocations of all allowances in the Kansas
budget other than allowances in the Indian country NUSA for Kansas. For
each of those years there is a second table with potential allocations
to the same units of otherwise unallocated allowances from the Indian
country NUSA for Kansas if all of those allowances should be made
available by EPA for state allocation. The rule also includes
provisions for computing potential allocations to the same units of
otherwise unallocated allowances from the Indian country NUSA for
Kansas if some but not all of those allowances should be made available
by EPA for state allocation. Finally, the rule includes provisions
defining several terms used either in the rule's allocation provisions
or in other definitions.
    The SIP revision was submitted to EPA by a letter from the Kansas
Secretary of Health and Environment acting as the designated
representative of the Governor of Kansas. The letter describes steps
taken by Kansas to provide public notice prior to adoption of the state
rule. The letter also indicates that paragraphs 28-19-274(a)(2)(A) and
(B) of the Kansas rule, which contain definitions of certain terms
differing from the definitions of the same terms in the Federal trading
program regulations, are excluded from the SIP submittal.
    EPA has previously approved a separate Kansas SIP revision
replacing the default allowance allocation provisions of the CSAPR
NOX Annual Trading Program for Kansas existing units for the
control period in 2016.\27\ At this time, Kansas has not submitted any
SIP revision to modify or replace the CSAPR FIP that requires the
state's units to participate in the CSAPR SO2 Group 2
Trading Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 80 FR 50789 (August 21, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Analysis of Kansas's Submittal

1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP Submittal
    Kansas' SIP revision seeks to establish state-determined
allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances for the control
periods in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B), the
deadline for submission of state-determined allocations for the 2017
and 2018 control periods is June 1, 2016, which under Sec.
52.38(a)(4)(ii) makes December 1, 2015 the deadline for submission to
EPA of a complete SIP revision establishing state-determined
allocations for those control periods. Kansas submitted its SIP
revision to EPA by a letter dated and delivered electronically on
December 1, 2015, and EPA has determined that the submittal complies
with the applicable minimum completeness criteria in section 2.1 of
appendix V to 40 CFR part 51. Because Kansas's SIP revision was timely
submitted and meets the applicable completeness criteria, it meets the
condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii) for timely submission of a
complete SIP revision.
2. Methodology Covering All Allowances Potentially Requiring Allocation
    Paragraph 28-19-274(c) of the Kansas rule provides that the
allowance allocation methodology adopted by Kansas in the SIP revision
replaces the provisions of 40 CFR 97.411(a), thereby addressing all
allowances that under the default allocation provisions for the Federal
trading program would be allocated to units considered existing units
for CSAPR purposes (prior to allocation of any otherwise unallocated
allowances from the NUSA or Indian country NUSA for Kansas). The same
Kansas rule paragraph also provides that the state's allocation
methodology replaces the provisions of 40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and
97.412(a), thereby addressing allocation of allowances in the NUSA
established for Kansas under the Federal trading program. In addition,
paragraphs 28-19-274(d) and (e) of the Kansas rule provide procedures
addressing any otherwise unallocated allowances from the Indian country
NUSA for Kansas that may be made available for allocation by the state
after EPA has carried out the Indian country NUSA allocation
procedures. Collectively, the allocation provisions in the Kansas rule
therefore enable Kansas' SIP revision to meet the condition under 40
CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i) that the state's allocation or auction methodology
must cover all allowances potentially requiring allocation by the
state.
3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will Not Exceed the State Budget
    Paragraph 28-19-274(d) of the Kansas rule provides for allowance
allocations to be made in fixed amounts set forth in tables adopted by
reference into the state rules. For each of the three control periods
for which the rule allocates allowances, there is a table providing
allocations for the allowances that absent this SIP revision would be
allocated pursuant to 40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.411(b)(1), and 97.412(a).
For each of the control periods, the sum of the fixed amounts allocated
according to these tables is 31,323 allowances, which is equal to the
Kansas budget for the control period (31,354 tons) less the amount of
the Indian country NUSA for Kansas (31 tons).\28\ EPA has not yet
allocated or recorded CSAPR allowances for the 2017 through 2019
control periods. The allocation methodology in Kansas's SIP revision
therefore meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A) that the
total

amount of allowances allocated under the SIP revision (before the
addition of any otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian country
NUSA) may not exceed the state's budget for the control period less the
amount of the Indian country NUSA for the state and any allowances
already allocated and recorded by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 40 CFR 97.410(a)(6)(iv), (a)(6)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Kansas rule also has provisions providing potential
allocations of allowances from the Indian country NUSA for Kansas,
under paragraph 28-19-274(b) of the Kansas rule the only allowances
available for allocation under those provisions are otherwise
unallocated allowances that EPA has made available from the Indian
country NUSA for state allocation after having carried out the Indian
country NUSA allocation procedures. The total of the allowances
allocated under the SIP revision and any allowances allocated by EPA
from the Indian country NUSA for Kansas therefore will not exceed the
state budget, consistent with the purpose of 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A).
4. Timely Submission of State-Determined Allocations to EPA
    The state-determined allowance allocations established by the
Kansas rule for each of the three control periods covered by the rule
are included in tables that have been adopted by reference into the
state rule and that were provided to EPA as part of the SIP submittal
on December 1, 2015. As noted above, in the case of a SIP revision
seeking to allocate allowances starting with the 2017 control period,
the earliest deadline for submission to EPA of the state-determined
allocations is June 1, 2016. Kansas' SIP revision therefore meets the
conditions under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and (C) requiring that the
SIP revision provide for submission of state-determined allowance
allocations to EPA by the deadlines specified in those provisions.
5. No Changes to Allocations Already Submitted to EPA or Recorded
    The Kansas rule includes no provision allowing alteration of
allocations after the allocation amounts have been provided to EPA and
no provision allowing alteration of any allocations made and recorded
by EPA under the Federal trading program regulations, thereby meeting
the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(D).
6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal Trading Program Provisions
    Besides the provisions addressing allowance allocations discussed
above, the Kansas rule includes a number of provisions defining terms
used either in the rule's allocation provisions or in other
definitions. In paragraph 28-19-274(a)(1), the rule adopts by reference
several terms defined in 40 CFR 97.402, and in paragraph 28-19-274(b),
the rule defines a new term ``Indian country new unit set-aside
allowance'' that is used only in the Kansas rule for purposes of
allowance allocations. These provisions do not make substantive changes
to the Federal trading program provisions.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ EPA has proposed to make certain technical corrections to
the CSAPR FIP and Federal trading program regulations in order to
more accurately reflect EPA's intent as described in the CSAPR
rulemaking and has also proposed to replace ``TR'' with ``CSAPR''
throughout the regulations (for example, ``TR NOX Annual
unit'' would become ``CSAPR NOX Annual unit''). See 80 FR
75706, 75758. Because the proposed technical corrections merely
clarify and do not change EPA's interpretations, where the proposed
corrections would apply to a provision incorporated by reference in
the Kansas rule, EPA would interpret the Kansas rule as reflecting
the corrections. Further, EPA anticipates that if the proposed
nomenclature updates are finalized, the final CSAPR Federal
regulations would explicitly provide that terms that include
``CSAPR'' encompass otherwise identical terms in approved SIP
revisions that include ``TR''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraphs 28-19-274(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Kansas rule adopt
definitions of ``administrator'', ``State'', and ``permitting
authority'' that substantively differ from the definitions of these
terms in the Federal trading program regulations. While these terms are
not used directly in the Kansas rule, they are used in the Federal
trading program definitions of some of the other terms that are adopted
by reference under paragraph 28-19-274(a)(1). Inclusion of the Kansas
rule's definitions of ``administrator'', ``State'', and ``permitting
authority'' in the SIP revision therefore would cause the meanings of
those other adopted terms as used in the Kansas rule to substantively
differ from the meanings of the same terms as used in the Federal
trading program regulations. After being advised of these differences
by EPA, Kansas elected to exclude the provisions of paragraphs 28-19-
274(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Kansas rule from the SIP revision, as the
state's letter submitting the SIP revision makes clear. (Without the
excluded provisions, the rule remains fully functional for its intended
purpose of allocating CSAPR allowances among the state's units.)
Considering Kansas' SIP revision without the excluded rule provisions,
EPA has determined that the SIP revision meets the condition under 40
CFR 52.38(a)(4) of making no substantive changes to the Federal trading
program regulations beyond the provisions addressing allowance
allocations.

V. EPA's Action on Kansas' Submittal

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the revision to
Kansas' SIP submitted on December 1, 2015 concerning allocations to
Kansas units of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances for the control
periods in 2017, 2018, and 2019. This SIP revision adopts into the SIP
the rule codified in Kansas' regulations at K.A.R. 28-19-274 excluding
paragraphs 28-19-274(a)(2)(A) and (B). The Kansas rule in turn
incorporates a document entitled ``TR NOX annual allowance
allocations for 2017, 2018, and 2019,'' dated July 17, 2015, which
contains tables setting forth state-determined allowance allocations to
individual Kansas units. Following this approval, allocations of these
allowances will be made according to the provisions of Kansas' SIP
instead of CSAPR's default allocation provisions at 40 CFR 97.411(a),
97.411(b)(1), and 97.412(a). Approval of this SIP revision does not
alter any provision of the Federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading
Program as applied to Kansas units other than the allowance allocation
provisions, and the FIP requiring the units to participate in that
program (as modified by this SIP revision) remains in place. EPA is
approving the SIP revision because it meets the requirements of the CAA
and EPA's regulations for approval of an abbreviated SIP revision
replacing EPA's default allocations of CSAPR emission allowances with
state-determined allocations, as discussed in section IV above. Because
the SIP revision addresses only the control periods in 2017 through
2019, absent submission and approval of a further SIP revision,
allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual allowances for control
periods in 2020 and later years will be made pursuant to the default
allocation provisions.
    Large electricity generating units in Kansas are also subject to an
additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate in the Federal CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 Trading Program. Kansas's SIP submittal does not
seek to replace the default allocations of CSAPR SO2 Group 2
allowances to Kansas units. Approval of this SIP revision concerning
another CSAPR trading program has no effect on the Federal CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 Trading Program as applied to Kansas units, and
the FIP requiring the units to participate in that program remains in
place.

Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of the Kansas Cross-State Air Pollution
Regulations described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52
set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and at the appropriate EPA office (see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 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 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);
     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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 29, 2016. 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, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: June 16, 2016.
Mark Hague,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart R--Kansas

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.870(c), by adding entry 28-19-274, in numerical
order, under the subheading entitled ``General Provisions'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                         EPA-Approved Kansas Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
        Kansas citation                  Title         effective date    EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Kansas Department of Health and Environment Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
K.A.R. 28-19-274...............  Nitrogen Oxide               11/6/15  6/29/16 and [Insert   Approval of EGU-
                                  allocations.                          Federal Register      specific NOX
                                                                        citation].            allocations does
                                                                                not include KAR 28-
                                                                                19-274(a)(2)(A)
                                                                                and (a)(2)(B).

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-15040 Filed 6-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 16)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4071]
[DOCID:fr24ja08-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 71

[Docket FAA No. FAA-2007-27430; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-4]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Springfield, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal
Register October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61300), Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-4,
FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-27430. In that rule, an error was made in the
legal description for Springfield, CO. Specifically, the longitude
referencing Springfield, Municipal Airport, CO stated ``* * * long.
103[deg]37[min]05[sec] W.'' instead of ``* * * long.
102[deg]37[min]05[sec] W.'' Also added to the legal description is the
location of the TOBE VORTAC. This action corrects those errors.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, February 14, 2008. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On October 30, 2007, a final rule for Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-4,
FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-27430 was published in the Federal Register (72
FR 61300), establishing Class E airspace in Springfield, CO. The
longitude referencing Springfield Municipal Airport, CO was incorrect
in that the longitude stated ``* * * long. 103[deg]37[min]05[sec] W.''
instead of ``* * * long. 102[deg]37[min]05[sec] W.''. Also added to the
legal description is the location of the TOBE VORTAC. This action
corrects those errors.

Correction to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the legal
description as published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2007
(72 FR 61300), Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-4, FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-
27430, and incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1, is corrected as
follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
On page 61301, correct the legal description for Springfield, CO, to
read as follows:

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

ANM CO, E5 Springfield, CO [New]

Springfield Municipal Airport, CO
    (Lat. 37[deg]27[min]31[sec] N., long. 102[deg]37[min]05[sec] W.)
TOBE VORTAC
    (Lat. 37[deg]15[min]31[sec] N., long. 103[deg]36[min]00[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.0-mile radius of Springfield Municipal Airport; that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
beginning at TOBE VORTAC, thence north along V-169 to lat.
38[deg]34[min]00[sec] N., thence to lat. 38[deg]34[min]00[sec] N.,
long. 102[deg]00[min]00[sec] W., thence to lat.
36[deg]30[min]00[sec] N., long. 102[deg]00[min]00[sec] W., thence
west on lat. 36[deg]30[min]00[sec] N. to V-81, thence northwest
along V-81 to point of beginning.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 3, 2008.
Clark Desing
Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Center.
 [FR Doc. E8-846 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart JJJJJ) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJJJJ) (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 2022.04, OMB Control Number
2060-0508

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

	The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for brick and structural clay manufacturing were proposed on July 22,
2002, (67 FR 47894), and promulgated on May 16, 2003, (68 FR 26690).  A
brick and clay structural manufacturing facility manufactures brick
including, but not limited to: facers; clay pipe; roof tile; extruded
floors and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay products.
Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facilities
typically process raw clay and shale, form the processed materials into
bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes.  The rule
applies to existing large kilns, i.e., tunnel kilns with design
capacities of 10 tons per hour (tph) or more of fired product at these
facilities.  Each new or reconstructed tunnel kiln is an affected source
regardless of design capacity.  This information is being collected to
assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, notification of compliance status, and periodic
reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities.  They are
also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative.  These notifications, reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities
subject to NESHAP.  A semiannual report of compliance is also required.

Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain
a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five
years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and
records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority.   In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regional office.

Based on our consultations with industry representatives, there is an
average of 1.5 affected facilities at each plant site and that each
plant site has only one respondent (i.e., the owner/operator of the
plant site).

An average of 72 respondents will be subject to the regulation over the
period covered by this ICR, and it is estimated that one additional
respondent per year will also become subject to the standard.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the current
Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of
Clearance.”

            The burden to the “Affected Public” may be found in
Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost -- NESHAP for Brick and
Structural Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJ) (Renewal),
attached below.  The burden to the “Federal Government” is
attributed entirely to work performed by federal employees or government
contractors; this burden may be found in Table 2: Average Annual EPA
Burden -- NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart JJJJJ) (Renewal), attached below.

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory
of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants.  These
standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air
pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.
In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require
any owner/operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C)
install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit
procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with
such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during
such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);
(E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables
or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with
Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emissions from BSCP manufacturing facilities cause or contribute to air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare.  Therefore, the NESHAP were promulgated for this source
category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations which where promulgated in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information is also
used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected
facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.
Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the
standard at all times.  During the performance test, a record of the
operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded
and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission
monitor.

	The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the
Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the
requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then
inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operated, that leaks are being detected and
repaired, and that the standards are being met.  The performance test
may also be observed.

	The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess
emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify
operation/maintenance procedures and for compliance determinations.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

	The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart JJJJJ.

	3(a)  Non-duplication

	If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If
a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to
implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the
state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the
report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore,  no duplication
exists.

	3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (73 FR 31088) on May 30, 2008.  No
comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

	3(c)  Consultations

	In previous renewals, consultation with an industry representative from
the Brick Industry Association (BIA) was conducted; additionally, the
most recent ICR was referenced, the preparer of the active ICR
consulted, and other resources were used to obtain the most recent data
available.

It is our policy to respond after a thorough review of comments received
since the last ICR renewal as well as those submitted in response to the
first Federal Register notice.  In this case, no comments were received.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and that emission limitations are met.  If the information
required by these standards was collected less frequently, the
likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control
equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

	3(e)  General Guidelines

	None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of
the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

	These standards require the respondents to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
with the Part 70 permit program and the five year statute of limitations
on which the permit program is based.  The retention of records for five
years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a source
and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the
appropriate level of enforcement action.  Historically, EPA has found
that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending
beyond the five years.  If records were retained for less than five
years, EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst violators due to
the destruction or nonexistence of records.

	3(f)  Confidentiality

	Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

	3(g)  Sensitive Questions

	None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive
questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

	4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
brick and structural clay manufacturing.  The United States Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for the respondents affected by
the standards, which corresponds to the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes, are listed below for source
category descriptions.

Standard (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJ)	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing	3251	327121

Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile Manufacturing	3253	327122

Other Structural Clay Product Manufacturing	3259	327123

	4(b)  Information Requested

	These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the
regulations that OMB established under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

		(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that are recorded and/or reported are required by
NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJJJJ).

	A source must make the following reports:

Notifications	Standard Citation by Sections

Initial notification (including construction/reconstruction)	63.5(b),
63.9(b), 63.8480(a)-(c)

Notification of performance test	63.7(b)-(c), 63.9(e), 63.8480(d)

Notification of compliance status	63.9(h), 63.10(d)(2), 63.8480(e)

Request for routine control device maintenance exemption	63.8480(f)

Request for extension of compliance date	63.9(c), 63.4283

First compliance report	63.10(e)(3), 63.8485(b)-(f)

Semiannual reports of no deviations	63.10(e)(3), 63.8485 (c)(6)-(7)

Semiannual report of deviations	63.10(e)(3), 63.8485(d)(e)

Startup, shutdown, malfunction (SSM) report	63.10(d)(5), 63.8485(c)(4)

	A source must make the following reports:

Recordkeeping

Records supporting initial and compliance status notifications
63.10(b)(2)(xiv), 63.8490(a)(1)

Records of performance tests	63.10(b)(2)(viii), 63.8490(a)(3)

Record of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions	63.6(e)(3)(iii)-(iv),
63.8490(a)(2)

Records for each continuous monitoring system (CMS), production records,
and bag leak detection system records	63.8(d)(3), 63.8(f)(6)(i),
63.8(g), 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi), 63.8490(b)-(c)

Records of SSM and operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plans
63.6(e)(3), 63.8490(c)(6)

Records are required to be retained for five years	63.10(b)(1), 63.8495

Electronic Reporting

	At the present, respondents are using monitoring equipment that
automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the
affected facility must evaluate the data, this internal automation has
significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and
recordkeeping at the plant site.

	Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents continue
to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However,
electronic reporting systems are still not widely used.  At this time,
it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use
electronic reporting.

		(ii)  Respondent Activities

 Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for opacity.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 5, and 26A tests, and
repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using automated monitoring equipment that
provides parameter data.  Although personnel at the sources need to
evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly
reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

	5(a)  Agency Activities

	EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports and
excess emissions reports required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

	5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

	Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might
inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices
are properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used
by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with
the emission standard.  Data and records maintained by the respondents
are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement
programs.  The semiannual reports are used for problem identification,
as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance
determinations.

	Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is
operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s
database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance
data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned
facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and
enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices
and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit,
store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the
owner/operator for five years.

	5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

	A majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large
businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small
businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the
regulation.  The number of small entities affected by this rule could
not be determined, based on review of the following sources: promulgated
rule notice in the Federal Register; Economic Impact Analysis of the
Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP: Final Rule
(2003); and a search of publicly available current data sources.  The
Economic Impact Analysis document states: “Based on the SBA
definitions, the Agency identified 76 of the companies owning facilities
that produce [brick and structural clay products] as small (84 percent)
and 14 as large (15 percent)…”

Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the
types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are the same for both small and large entities.  The Agency
considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance
and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities.  To the
extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their
burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

	5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost --
NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJJJJ) (Renewal), attached below.

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

	Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed
under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept
of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate,
specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to
this information collection are mandatory.

The 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.

	6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 14,086
(Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency
studies and background documents from the development of this
regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the
previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

	6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

		(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

	This ICR uses the following labor rates:

		Managerial	$97.46   ($46.41 + 110%)

		Technical	$83.71   ($39.86 + 110%)

		Clerical	$42.55   ($20.26 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, “Table 2: Civilian Workers, by
Occupational and Industry group.”  The rates are from column 1,
“Total Compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent
to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by
private industry.

		(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

	The type of industry costs associated with the information collection
activities in the subject standard are labor costs which are addressed
elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous
monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one time costs when a
facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and
maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and
other costs such as photocopying and postage.

		(iii) Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents 1	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost,

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M 1	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Parametric monitoring 	$10,000	1	$10,000	$66	72	$4,752

   1   During the fourth year of this ICR, all existing facilities are
required to be in full compliance with the standard.

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $10,000.  This is the
total of column D in the above table.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are $4,752.
 This is the total of column G.

The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and
maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $14,752.

	6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis
of the reported information.  EPA's overall compliance and enforcement
program includes activities such as the examination of records
maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of
emission, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

	The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $18,658.  This cost is based on the average hourly labor
rate as follows:

		Managerial	$56.02   (GS-13, Step 5, $35.01 x 1.6)

		Technical	$41.57   (GS-12, Step 1, $25.98 x 1.6)

		Clerical	$22.50   (GS-6, Step 3, $14.06 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2005
General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon
which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA
Burden -- NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR
part 63, subpart JJJJJ) (Renewal), attached below.

	6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three
years, approximately 72 existing respondents will be subject to the
standard.  It is estimated that one additional respondent per year will
become subject.  The overall average number of respondents, as shown in
the table below is 72 per year.

	The number of respondents is calculated using the following table which
addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

	Respondents That Submit Reports	Respondents That Do Not Submit Any
Reports

	Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit
Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	1	70	0	0	71

2	1	71	0	0	72

3	1	72	0	0	73

Average	1	71	0	0	72

	To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown
above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of
this ICR is 72.

	The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Initial notification of applicability	1	1	0	1

Application of construction/reconstruction	1	1	0	1

Notification of anticipated startup	1	1	0	1

Notification of actual startup	1	1	0	1

Request air pollution control device maintenance exemption	1	1	0	1

Notification of performance test	1	1	0	1

Report of performance test	1	0.1	0	0.1

Notification of compliance status	1	1	0	1

Compliance report	1	1	0	1

Report of deviations	10.8	2	0	21.6

Report of no deviations	61.2	2	0	122.4

Startup, shutdown, malfunction report	7.2	2	0	14.4

	Total	166

	The number of Total Annual Responses is 166.

	6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden and Cost Tables

	The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
and summarized below.

		(i) Respondent Tally

	The total annual labor costs are $1,137,652 (rounded).  Details
regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Respondent
Burden and Cost -- NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Manufacturing
(40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ) (Renewal), attached below.  Furthermore,
the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 85 hours per response.

The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity
are $14,752.  The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii),
Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

		(ii) The Agency Tally

	The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is
estimated to be 460 labor hours at a cost of $18,658.  See Table 2:
Annual Agency Burden and Cost -- NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ) (Renewal).

	6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

	There is no change in the labor hours or cost to the respondents in
this ICR compared to the previous ICR.  This is due to two
considerations.  First, the regulations have not changed over the past
three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years.
 Secondly, the growth rate for respondents is very low, negative, or
non-existent.  Therefore, the labor hours and cost figures in the
previous ICR reflect the current burden to the respondents and are
reiterated in this ICR.  Apparent differences of less than 500 hours are
attributable to rounding; in previous years, hours were rounded to the
nearest thousand; this ICR presents more exact figures.

6(g)  Burden Statement

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 85 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; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

	An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0367.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used 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.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents are
also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
docket center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Also, you can send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0367 and OMB Control Number 2060-0508 in any
correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NESHAP for Brick and
Structural Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJ) (Renewal)

Burden item

(A)

Person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No.  of

occurrences

per respondent

per year

(C)

Person-

hours per

respondent

per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Respondents

per year  a

(E)

Technical

person-

hours per

year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $  b

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Reporting Requirements

   A.  Read instructions 	0.5	1	0.5	72	36	1.8	3.6	$3,342.17

   B.  Required activities

       Develop startup, shutdown,                        malfunction
plan c, d	100	1	100	1	100	5	10	$9,283.80

       Develop operation, maintenance, and         monitoring plan c, d
100	1	100	1	100	5	10	$9,283.80

   C.  Create information	See 3B

	   D.  Gather existing information	See 3B

	   E.  Write report

       Initial notification of applicability c, e	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2
$185.68

       Notification of construction/
reconstruction c, e	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$185.68

       Notification of anticipated startup c, e 	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2
$185.68

       Notification of actual startup c, e 	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$185.68

       Request air pollution control device           maintenance
exemption c, e	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$185.68

       Notification of performance test f	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$185.68

       Notification of report of performance         test	2	0.1	0.2	1
0.2	0.01	0.02	$18.56

       Notification of compliance status f	16	1	16	1	16	0.8	1.6
$1,485.41

       First compliance report f	16	1	16	1	16	0.8	1.6	$1,485.41

       Report of deviations f, g,                            	20	2	40
10.8	432	21.6	43.2	$40,106.02

       Report of no deviations f, h, j	8	2	16	61.2	979.2	48.96	97.92
$90,906.97

       Startup, shutdown, malfunction f, i, j     	20	2	40	7.2	288	14.4
28.8	$26,737.34

SUBTOTAL Reporting

	2,276.31	$183,763.56

4.  Recordkeeping requirements

   A. Read instructions 	4	1	4	72	288	14.4	28.8	$26,737.34

   B. Plan activities

       Prepare for initial performance test f, 	24	1	24	24	576	28.8	57.6
$53,474.69

       Prepare for repeat performance

       test f, i,  k	24	1	24	2.4	57.6	2.88	5.76	$5,347.57

   C.  Implement activities

       Initial performance test f	24	2.5	60	24	1,440	72	144	$133,686.72

       Repeat performance test f, 	24	2.5	60	2.4	144	7.2	14.4	$13,368.67

   D.  Develop record system	See 4E

   E.  Time to enter information

       Records of all information required            by standards l	2
52	104	72	7,488	374.4	748.8	$695,170.94

   F.  Time to train personnel m	40	6	240	1	240	12	24	$22,761.12

  G.  Time to adjust existing ways to                   comply with
previously applicable             requirements	N/A

	  H. Time to transmit or disclose                        information n
0.25	2	0.5	72	36	1.8	3.6	$3,342.17

   I. Time for audits 	N/A

	SUBTOTAL Recordkeeping

	11,810.04	$953,889.22

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	12,249	612.45	1,224.9	$1,137,652.78

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	14,086	$1,137,652

Assumptions:

a  We have assumed that the average number of respondents that will be
subject to the rule will be 72.  There will be one additional new source
per year that will become subject to the rule per year.

b  This ICR uses the following labor rates: $97.46 per hour for
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $83.71 per hour for
Technical labor, and $42.55 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates
are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, March 19, 2005, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by
Occupational and Industry group.”  The rates are from column 1,
“Total Compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110% to
account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private
industry.

c  This is a one-time only activity.

d  We have assumed that it will take 100 hours for each respondent to
complete the required activity.

e  We have assumed that each respondent will take two hours each to
write report.

f  During the fourth year of this renewal ICR, all existing facilities
are required to be in full compliance with the standard.

g  We have assumed that 15 percent of respondent will report deviations.

h  We have assumed that 85 percent of respondents will report deviation.

i  We have assumed that 10 percent of respondents will file a startup,
shutdown, malfunction report.

j   Semiannual reports are required.

k  We have assumed that 10 percent of respondents will have to repeat
the performance test.

l  It is assumed that all of the respondents will be required to record
information on a weekly basis.

m  It is assumed that it will take 40 hours to train each personnel.

n  It is assumed that respondents will be required to transmit/disclose
information on a semiannual basis.

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Brick and Structural
Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJ) (Renewal)

	Activity

(A)

EPA person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No. of

occurrences

per plant

 per year

(C)

EPA person

hours per

plant  per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Plants per year  a

(E)

Technical

person-hours

per year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $ b

1.   Attend Initial performance test 	24	1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

2.   Attend repeat performance

         Retesting preparation	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

         Retesting	24	1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

3.  Report review

        Initial notification of applicability	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$93.24

        Notification of  construction/ c                reconstruction	2
1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$93.24

        Notification of anticipated startup c	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$93.24

        Notification of actual startup c	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$93.24

        Request for APCD maintenance c           exemption	2	1	2	1	2	0.1
0.2	$93.24

        Notification of performance test d	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$93.24

        Notification of report of                          performance
tests	2	0.1	0.2	1	0.2	0.01	0.02	$9.32

        Notification of compliance status d	60	1	60	1	60	3	6	$2,797.26

        Repeat performance test report d, e	40	1	40	0.1	4	0.2	0.4
$186.48

        First compliance report	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

        Semiannual compliance reports

             Deviation reports f, g	8	2	16	10.8	172.8	8.64	17.28
$8,056.11

             No deviation reports f	2	2	2	61.2	122.4	6.12	12.24
$5,706.41

       Review of startup, shutdown, f, h             malfunction reports
2	2	4	7.2	28.8	1.44	2.88	$1,342.69

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	400.2	20.01	40.02	$18,657.71

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	460	$18,658

Assumptions:

a  We have assumed that the average number of respondents that will be
subject to the rule will be 72.  There will be one additional new source
per year that will      become subject to the rule per year.

b  This cost is based on the following labor rates which incorporates a
1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead
expenses:  Managerial rate of $56.02 (GS-13, Step 5, $35.01 x 1.6),
Technical rate of $41.57 (GS-12, Step 1, $25.98 x 1.6), and Clerical
rate of $22.50 (GS-6, Step 3, $14.06 x 1.6).  These rates are from the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2005 General Schedule” which
excludes locality rates of pay.

c  This is a one-time only activity.

    d  During the fourth year of the ICR, all existing facilities are
required to come in full compliance with the standard.

e  We have assumed that 10 percent of respondents will review the repeat
performance test report

f  Semiannual reports are required.

g  We have assumed that 15 percent of respondents will have to review
the deviation report.

h  We have assumed that 10 percent of respondents will be engaged in the
reviewing of the startup, shutdown, malfunction reports.

 PAGE   16

 PAGE   17