DATE JULY 20, 2011 MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:OVERRIDE FOR EXTREME AMBIENT TEMPERATURES FROM:  	Victor McMahan, OTAQ/Transportation and Regional Programs Division 	   	 TO:	Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

Purpose / Background:              March 9, 2011 email communication with staff of the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) on preliminary environmental chamber test results on the performance of idle reduction technologies in extreme ambient temperature conditions (see below)

Discussion:

From:	"Zietsman, Joe"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To:	Victor McMahan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc:	"Johnson, Jeremy"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Lee, Doh-Won"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date:	03/09/2011 03:39 PM Subject:	Temperatures

Victor,   Here is what we found for chamber temperatures at 100 and 0 degrees.    In-Cabin Target Temperature (73 °F)   Average Temperature Maintained during the Hot Test (at 100 °F) Average Temperature Maintained during the Cold Test (at 0 °F) Diesel Powered APU #1 73 64* Diesel Powered APU #2 71 73 Battery Powered APU #1 80   Battery Powered APU #2 83   Diesel Operated Heater #1   62 Diesel Operated Heater #2   50

*APU was set at 73° F.  It probably would have reached higher temperatures if it was set at a higher temperature.  Also, please note that the Battery Powered APUs did not have heaters connected to them so we could not run the cold tests on them.    If you need anything else or more, please, let me know          Let me know if you need anything else. Joe Conclusion:       The information from the email communication with TTI was used to inform the discussion on the performance of idle reduction technologies in extreme ambient temperature conditions and decision to adopt the Automatic Engine Shutdown override for extreme ambient temperatures.


Response: EPA agrees with the comment and will revise the rule language to reduce the burden to covered sources. Specifically, EPA is reducing the frequency of the surveys from quarterly to annually and will eliminate the requirement to perform weekly surveys. However, EPA is adding a provision to require that a survey be done within 30 days after a new source or new operation commences operation. This applies to entirely new sites and to new sources or new operations located at existing sites. EPA is also adding a requirement that the written dust control plan for construction or demolition activities be prepared prior to commencing construction or demolition. Because of the short term nature of many construction and demolition activities, EPA believes that it is more appropriate that a written plan, specifying the reasonable precautions to be followed, be prepared before commencing construction or demolition rather than within 30 days after commencing construction or demolition.

The effect of these rule changes is to reduce the number of surveys required by these rules and the number of times the written plan needs to be reviewed and revised. Sources will generally only need to do one survey per year and update their written plan as necessary. New sources and sources that add new operations that could emit fugitive dust will have to do a survey and update their written plans within 30 days after such new operations have commenced. Construction and demolition activities will no longer have to do weekly surveys, but will prepare their plan ahead of time and only do a survey if the work lasts for more than 30 days.

6. Comment: One company commented that the provision exhorting owners or operators to consider all environmental implications of any particular fugitive dust control measure is vague and practically unenforceable. While the commenter recognized that this may be a legitimate policy, it is suggested that the sentiment would be better offered in the preamble to this rule.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and is removing this provision from the final rule. As the commenter suggested, EPA is including similar language in the preamble to the final rule. EPA also plans on including such language in the outreach materials for implementing this rule. 8/ 19/ 04 40 N. Section 49.127 Rule for Woodwaste Burners 1. Comment: One Tribe suggested that the phase out under this rule be shortened to one year with no extensions. The Tribe also suggested adding that all burners be dismantled by a certain date, e. g. six months to one year after the rule goes into effect, so that nonoperating woodwaste burners would not be able to have one startup and phaseout over a two year period at some point after the rule is in effect. The Tribe suggested the term " dismantled" should be defined.

Response: Most woodwaste burners have already been shut down under State and local air agency programs. This rule, § 49.127, phases out the operation of woodwaste burners commonly known as wigwam or teepee burners on the Nez Perce Reservation and the Colville Indian Reservation. In the interim, this rule limits the visible emissions from woodwaste burners operating within the Indian reservation in order to control emissions of particulate matter to the atmosphere and ground level concentrations of PM10. The owner or operator is required to submit a plan for shutting down the woodwaste burner to EPA within 180 days after the effective date of these rules and to shut down and dismantle the woodwaste burner no later than two years after the effective date of these rules. Sources could apply to EPA for an extension of the twoyear deadline if there is no reasonably available method of disposal for the wood waste. Unless an extension has been granted by the Regional Administrator, the woodwaste burner will be shut down and dismantled within two years after the effective date of this rule. This section is promulgated in part 49 subpart M on reservations only where EPA determined, in consultation with the Tribe, that it is appropriate to establish this requirement in order to control air pollution. Each owner or operator of operating and nonoperating units must submit a plan for closure that is legally enforceable.

EPA is clarifying in the final rule that this rule applies to both operating and nonoperating woodwaste units. This clarification addresses the concerns of a commenter that nonoperating burners might start up and run longer than other units. EPA believes that the common definition of dismantle is sufficient to define what is required in this rule, and therefore we have decided not to include a definition of dismantle.

EPA is developing an implementation plan to guide how EPA and affected Tribes will implement the rule in each reservation, and we believe the compliance time to shutdown woodwaste burners should not be reduced to less than two years. EPA believes the two years compliance time for shutdown will give the source time to arrange for alternate means of disposal for wood wastes with a minimal burden. The two year period will give an owner or operator of a woodwaste burner who might be using the unit only seasonally, adequate time following the effective date of this rule to find alternative methods for waste disposal. The 20% opacity requirement will limit emissions until burners shut down, thus protecting air quality from the potential for significant deterioration caused by the release of particulate matter.

O. Section 49.128 Rule for Limiting Particulate Matter Emissions from Wood Products 8/ 19/ 04 41 Industry Sources 1. Comment: One company commented that the reference to a one hour average does not make sense and should be deleted because the emission limit is based on pounds per thousand square feet of production, not on time.

Response: The final rule retains the one hour average approach that EPA proposed. EPA believes emission standards should include a period over which compliance is to be determined. Without defining a compliance period, the standard would be unenforceable as a practical matter. This compliance period must be consistent with the ability of the compliance test method to obtain a valid emissions measurement. In the case of this standard, Method 202, in conjunction with Method 201A, is the compliance method and a one hour averaging period is consistent with the results of these methods. In essence, the one hour averaging period requires that the emissions measured during the source test and the amount of board product produced during the test runs, be normalized to a one hour period for comparison to the numerical standard. This is no different than requiring the results of an emission test to be corrected to standard conditions. It establishes a consistent methodology for determining compliance with the numerical emission standard.

P. Section 49.130 Rule for Limiting Sulfur in Fuels 1. Comment: One Tribe suggested changing the exemption language from " fuel oils used exclusively for mobile sources" to " fuels generally sold for use in mobile sources..." because the end user's application is beyond the control of a station owner or operator, there can be no guarantee of a fuel being used exclusively in mobile sources.

Response: EPA is revising the wording of the exemption in the final rule to better clarify that gasoline and diesel fuel, such as automotive and marine diesel, regulated under 40 CFR part 80 is completely exempt from this section. This means that the sale, distribution, and end use of such fuel is exempt from § 49.130.

2. Comment: One industry association and one company commented that wood and bark should be exempted from the sulfur content requirements for solid fuel because the sulfur content of wood is very low   typically 0.0 to 0.2 percent by weight, which is far below the 2% limit specified for solid fuels. The commenters suggested that if wood is not completely exempted from the sulfur content rules, then it should be exempted from the testing and recordkeeping provisions which would represent a very burdensome requirement that would have no environmental benefit.

Response: This rule, § 49.130, applies to any person who sells, distributes, uses or makes available for use any fuel oil, coal, solid fuel, liquid fuel, or gaseous fuel within the Indian reservation. EPA agrees that there is little need to test wood and wood bark for sulfur content. However, wood is often burned in combination with other fuels, including coal and oil. Therefore, EPA is not exempting wood and wood bark entirely from this rule. However, the final 8/ 19/ 04 42 rule clarifies that if only wood is used, then no testing is required, and the source must keep records showing that only wood was used.

Q. Section 49.131 General Rule for Open Burning 1. Comment: All but one commenter on the open burning rule at § 49.131 recommended that EPA limit the burning of household wastes in burn barrels. Several citizens commented that the proposed rule with the burn barrel exemption was too lax.

Many citizens, Tribal members, and State and local agencies were opposed to the exemption for burning household wastes in burn barrels based on the health impacts of residential burning. Of greatest concern were the risks for people with increased sensitivities, such as people with asthma, the elderly, and especially children. Some citizens were concerned about the toxic substances emitted from open burning due to incomplete combustion.

A recent study by EPA, " Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning of Household Waste in Barrels" by Paul M. Lemieux, was cited in one State environmental agency's comment letter. The study reveals that emissions from open burning can be several orders of magnitude higher than controlled combustion from a municipal solid waste incinerator. The State also noted that toxins generated by burn barrels remain in the immediate vicinity and the area downwind of the burn barrel for decades. This accumulation can expose families, neighbors, and future generations living on the same land to ever increasing levels of hazardous substances.

Some commenters also questioned the exemption for burning in burn barrels, since such use is already prohibited by many State and local air quality, waste disposal, or fire safety rules or requirements.

Citizens and Tribes argued against allowing burning of household wastes in burn barrels where garbage collection is reasonably available. One State also noted that many reservations have recycling and garbage collection services. Two Tribes suggested adding language to only allow residential burning where no other means of disposal is readily available, such as a reasonably close community dumpster or waste hauling service. One Tribe asked that paper and cardboard burning be allowed where there was no other reasonable means available for recycling or disposing of solid waste.

Response: EPA received many comments with compelling information about the threats to human health that can result from open burning, especially from burning garbage in burn barrels. In addition to the numerous comments that objected to allowing the burning of household wastes in burn barrels, EPA has learned of many efforts to stop backyard burning, especially in residential areas. EPA's Office of Solid Waste is implementing a national program to encourage the use of alternatives to open burning, and the State of Washington is attempting to eliminate all outdoor burning. 8/ 19/ 04 43 Based on these comments and new information, EPA is revising the final open burning rule to eliminate the proposed exemption for burning combustible household wastes in burn barrels at single family residences or residential buildings of four or fewer dwelling units. EPA recognizes that the use of burning to dispose of household wastes is disfavored by a wide variety of government agencies, and many residents of reservations spoke out against this practice. Eliminating the exemption for burning combustible household wastes in burn barrels meets another stated objective of the FARR, which is to level the playing field for sources inside and outside reservation boundaries, as discussed in more detail below.

The proposed exemption allowed the burning of combustible household wastes in burn barrels, including burning garbage, plastic containers, paper, paper products, cardboard, and other materials resulting from general residential activities. The only element of the proposed exemption that EPA is retaining in the final rule is to allow for open burning on site of paper, paper products, and cardboard that are generated by single family residences or residential buildings with four or fewer dwelling units.

EPA proposed to allow the burning of household wastes in burn barrels based on our understanding that solid waste handling alternatives were not readily available to all persons living on reservations. It was EPA's intention not to create undue hardships for people on reservations with no garbage pickup or recycling centers. A reservation solid waste survey conducted in 1997 ( Reservation Solid Waste Survey, The Northwest Renewable Resource Center, ed. John M. Kliem) indicated that two thirds of Tribal governments in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington do not have solid waste management programs and many reservations do not have garbage pickup service. Further, several Tribes confirmed during consultation that alternatives to residential burning were not readily available to all persons on their reservations, and limiting open burning would be difficult to enforce. EPA heard from commenters however that many reservations have access to garbage collection services, although we have insufficient information to conclude that solid waste handling alternatives are readily available on all reservations. Therefore, while we are eliminating the exemption for burning combustible household wastes in burn barrels due to the health effects and other environmental and safety concerns, EPA believes, on balance, that it is not appropriate to completely prohibit the outdoor burning of paper, paper products, and cardboard at this time.

Under today's final rule outdoor burning cannot be used to dispose of garbage, plastics, or plastic products, including plastic containers and styrofoam. It should be noted that the removal of the proposed exemption for burning household wastes in burn barrels does not mean that all burning in burn barrels is prohibited by this rule. Under this rule, burn barrels may be used to dispose of materials that are allowed to be open burned, such as tree trimmings, yard waste, and paper generated by a single family residence. EPA emphasizes that open burning must also comply with the fire safety codes or other applicable regulations that may also govern outdoor burning and the use of burn barrels.

As discussed in the proposal, one goal of the FARR is to level the playing field for sources inside 8/ 19/ 04 44 and outside reservation boundaries. Review of the Federally approved open burning rules for Idaho, Oregon, and Washington shows that all three States prohibit the burning of garbage and plastics, and all three Federally approved State rules allow some burning of paper and cardboard. Additionally, none of the State rules completely prohibits the use of burn barrels. Oregon's rule specifically allows the limited use of burn barrels, while Idaho's and Washington's rules do so indirectly by allowing limited open burning and not excluding burn barrels from the open burning definition. Therefore, EPA believes that the revisions made to the final open burning rule make it more consistent with the EPA approved rules of the surrounding jurisdictions.

Through outreach and education, it is EPA's goal to eliminate open burning disposal practices where alternative methods are feasible and practicable, to encourage the development of alternative disposal methods, to emphasize resource recovery, and to encourage utilization of the highest and best practicable burning methods to minimize emissions where other disposal practices are not feasible.

EPA strongly supports Tribes, States, and other entities in continuing efforts to reduce open burning in their jurisdictions and generally encourages alternate methods for disposing of waste. EPA is working with both Tribes and States to enhance the awareness of the health concerns of open burning, facilitate the use of alternate disposal methods through outreach and recycling programs and continue efforts already underway to assist Tribes with solid waste management in areas where alternatives to burning are inadequate.

EPA also wishes to emphasize that by allowing the continued use of limited outdoor burning, we are not encouraging its use. We recognize that solid waste handling alternatives are readily available to many persons on reservations. EPA considered revising the rule to only allow outdoor burning of paper and cardboard where there is no other reasonable means available for recycling or disposing of solid waste. However, EPA did not include this approach in the final rule because it would be difficult at this time to establish and enforce criteria for deciding whether another means of disposal was available.

EPA is still concerned about the health effects of even limited outdoor burning. Therefore, we intend to continue to evaluate our approach as we gain experience implementing the rules published today, and consider whether outdoor burning should be further limited or completely banned in the future. We are interested in input regarding whether we should consider additional separate rulemaking to ban all outdoor burning on reservations, or only allow limited open burning where garbage pickup or recycling is not reasonably available.

As EPA puts in place these general open burning regulations, we think it is important to stress the authorities that we now have to protect the health of residents from improper outdoor burning. Any burning allowed by this final rule is still subject to other provisions in the FARR rules, such as the provisions to curtail all open burning when an air pollution episode is declared or when a burn ban is declared in accordance with § 49.131( d)( 2). EPA is also issuing rules at § § 49.135 or 49.136 that authorize EPA to regulate outdoor fires that are determined to cause or contribute to 8/ 19/ 04 45 a violation of any NAAQS, or is, or would likely be, injurious to human health or welfare. In addition, EPA has other emergency powers under section 303 of the CAA to restrain activities that are presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment. Lastly, EPA emphasizes that the FARR does not override the fire safety codes or other applicable regulations that also govern outdoor burning.

2. Comment: A firefighter commented there was an increased risk for grass and wildland fires because the proposed rules promoted the use of burn barrels. One State environmental agency also commented that burning household garbage is a major source of human caused wildfires. They further commented that wildfires are very destructive and kill people and livestock, destroy structures, devastate merchantable timber stands, pollute the air, and cost large sums of money to control and extinguish. The State also mentioned the work of agencies to reduce wildfire damages caused by escaped disposal fires and that many of the Tribes in the Northwest have heavy investments in their own timber resources. The State warned that legitimizing garbage burning might place reservations and surrounding vicinities at an increased risk of wildfire compared to areas where garbage burning is banned.

Response: EPA agrees there is a risk of grass and wildland fires from escaped debris disposal fires. EPA expects that the final rule will be more protective by removing the exemption for burning combustible household wastes in burn barrels and further limiting what can be burned at residences as described above.

3. Comment: One commenter suggested that the issue of open burning should not be a matter of control by EPA as part of a FIP, and that open burning should be a matter for local control where it does not cause a nuisance or impact sensitive populations. Another commenter recognized that the open burning provisions were not as strict as their own Tribal Ordinance but supported the rules as a backstop of Federal Authority.

Response: The general open burning rule at § 49.131 that is adopted today for all reservations specifically provides that nothing in the rule exempts or excuses any person from complying with the applicable laws and ordinances of other governmental jurisdictions. EPA emphasizes that this rule does not override the fire safety codes or other applicable regulations that also govern outdoor burning. For instance, a Tribe or local government within a reservation may have adopted a more stringent open burning rule. The Federal rule does not supersede such applicable Tribal or locally adopted laws and ordinances. Section 49.131( d)( 4) emphasizes this point by specifically clarifying that this rule does not exempt or excuse persons from complying with other applicable laws and ordinances.

Also, these CAA rules are the first building block to address the most prevalent gaps identified to date, and EPA will continue to evaluate air quality conditions and sources that cause or contribute to degradation. 67 FR 11749. Although EPA's rules may be less stringent than some Tribal Ordinances, on some reservations there are no rules in place at all. In light of the concern of putting in place basic rules to regulate outdoor burning, EPA believes that, on balance, public 8/ 19/ 04 46 health interests are better served if open burning rules are in place across all 39 reservations with some basic restrictions, than if no open burning rules are in place at all.

EPA strongly supports Tribes, States, and other entities in continuing efforts to reduce open burning in their jurisdictions and generally encourages alternate methods for disposing of waste. EPA is working with both Tribes and States to enhance an awareness of the health concerns of open burning and facilitate the use of alternate disposal methods through outreach and recycling programs.

4. Comment: One commenter suggested EPA add additional language in § 49.131( e) to make open burning safer, such as: including requirements that open burning should be conducted in daylight hours only; a visible flame must be present while burning; a person with equipment capable of extinguishing the fire or preventing fire spread must attend the fire at all times; no fires shall be within 50 feet of any structures or directly under power lines; and adding accelerators such as diesel fuel or gasoline should be unlawful.

Response: We agree with the commenter that these are good practices to follow to make open burning safer. Because these provisions relate primarily to fire safety, however, EPA is not adding these provisions in the final rule. However, we will consider adding them to guidance documents and educational materials. Also, EPA emphasizes that this rule does not override the fire safety codes or other applicable regulations that also govern outdoor burning.

5. Comment: Commenters wrote that calling a burn ban when 75% of any NAAQS has been exceeded is not stringent enough to protect human health and welfare. One Tribe commented that with respect to burn bans, the NAAQS are not sufficient to protect human health and welfare. One citizen commented that the EPA burn ban levels were not as protective as in other parts of the country, and worried about the effect on people who are sick, the elderly, and children. One local government commented that the trigger level is too high. One State agency pointed out that EPA's rules do not contain a " one hour" trigger level for PM10 and PM2.5. The State agency also asked EPA to explain the technical basis upon which it established the criteria, " that air quality levels have exceeded, or are expected to exceed, 75% of the NAAQS and will continue to exceed that level for at least the next 24 hours," which is much less stringent than State law. The State agency also requested that trigger levels and forecasts should be coordinated across boundaries to the extent possible.

Response: The standards EPA is employing in this rule to make air quality determinations have been promulgated by EPA under the authority of section 109 of the Act and are in effect nationally. EPA did not propose a new, one hour standard for this rulemaking, and we are not adding one to the final rule. However, in implementing this rule, EPA expects to use " real time" one hour data along with meteorology models and weather forecasts to make our determination whether to call a burn ban. EPA will work closely with Tribal, State and local programs in implementing this rule and calling burn bans across various parts of the Region. 8/ 19/ 04 47 The purpose for calling a burn ban is to prevent particulate matter concentrations from exceeding the NAAQS. The averaging period for short term particulate matter NAAQS ( both PM10 and PM2.5) is 24 hours. In order for a burn ban to successfully prevent a NAAQS violation from occurring, the ban needs to be called before levels actually reach the NAAQS. Since burns could already be underway when monitored values begin to approach NAAQS levels, and burns cannot be extinguished instantly when a ban is declared, EPA needs to call the ban when monitored levels are at, or are predicted to be at, some level less than the NAAQS. For the purposes of this rule, EPA has decided to call burn bans when particulate matter levels reach, or are predicted to reach 75% of the short term PM10 or PM2.5 NAAQS, and such levels are expected continue for the next 24 hours. EPA believes that initiating the ban at the 75% level will provide an adequate margin of safety to accommodate emissions from burns that are already underway and whose emissions will continue to contribute to particulate matter concentrations for a while after the ban is called. EPA also believes that it is appropriate to consider whether high particulate matter concentrations would be expected to continue over the next 24 hours since the NAAQS are based on a 24 hour average. If concentrations are expected to decline significantly, for example as a result of weather changes, then EPA would not call a burn ban because a ban would not be needed to ensure that the NAAQS would not be exceeded.

6. Comment: One local air agency suggested removing the exemption for disposal of fireworks and associated packaging materials ( in one open outdoor fire each year) and recommended that resources be put into establishing alternatives to the open burning of fireworks.

Response: EPA has considered the comment to remove the exemption for one open outdoor fire each year to dispose of fireworks and associated packaging materials, and we have decided not to change the rule. We recognize that this practice has the potential to be an area of concern, but we are also aware that there are safety issues with respect to the handling, storage, and disposal of unexploded fireworks. We do not have sufficient information at this time, however, to determine that it is necessary or appropriate to completely prohibit this practice on the 39 Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. This rulemaking is a first step to fill the regulatory gap on Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. As we have noted elsewhere, in the future we may promulgate additional rules or rule revisions if we determine that they are necessary or appropriate.

EPA strongly supports Tribes, States, and other entities in continuing efforts to reduce open burning in their jurisdictions and generally encourages alternate methods for disposing of waste. EPA is working with both Tribes and States to enhance an awareness of the health concerns of open burning and facilitate the use of alternate disposal methods through outreach and recycling programs.

R. Section 49.132 Rule for General Open Burning Permits 1. Comment: One industry association noted that while the proposed rule required persons to 8/ 19/ 04 48 submit an application for a burn permit at least one working day, and no earlier than five working days, prior to the burn, there is no provision requiring EPA to act on the application within a reasonable amount of time. The commenter recommended that the section be revised to require EPA to act within a reasonable amount of time.

Response: EPA has considered the comment to revise the rule to require EPA to act within a reasonable amount of time, and we have decided not to change the rule. We believe the rule as written reflects our intention to act on an application prior to the requested burn date( s) if it meets the requirements of the section. Additional details for the permit process will be worked out through implementation guidance and the development of delegation agreements.

Also, we would like to clarify when the permittee needs to submit an application ( see table below). The rule refers to one and five working days prior to the requested burn date. We intended that EPA have one full working day to review and act on an application. For example, if a land clearing operation wanted to begin burning on a Monday, it would have to submit its application to EPA no later than 5: 00 pm Thursday and no earlier than Monday of the previous week. If a homeowner wanted to burn some yard waste on Saturday, it would have to submit its application no later than 5: 00 pm Thursday and no earlier than Monday of that week. An application submitted at closing time on Friday for a Saturday planned burn would not allow EPA time to evaluate and issue the permit. Applications submitted far in advance of a planned burn could not be approved at the time of submittal, because EPA would not have knowledge of expected air quality conditions at the time of the planned burn. 8/ 19/ 04 49 FARR Burn Permit Calendar Burn Permit Applications Accepted Burn Permit Application Due by 5: 00 PM Burn Date Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 8/ 19/ 04 50 S. Section 49.133 Rule for Agricultural Burning Permits 1. Comment: Two industry associations recommended that the open burning permit requirements under § 49.132 Rule for general open burning permits be expressly exempt from this section.

Response: This rule only applies to agricultural burning. Section 49.132 already expressly exempts agricultural burning from the requirements of that rule. EPA sees no need to add a provision to § 49.133 that exempts agricultural burning from § 49.132, a rule that does not apply to agricultural burning. EPA is finalizing the rule as proposed.

2. Comment:. One farmer asked that if any smoke management plan were to be written or adopted that he would like assurance that burning would not be halted during the burning season for non scientific reasons. The farmer asked to have input if the Tribe, governor, or other groups requested a burn ban on days when atmospheric conditions favored burning. Several farmers and one industry association asked to be included in the process for developing smoke management plans and related regulations. Another farmer asked for information about how the terms and conditions of the burning permits would be determined.

Response: The commenters are referring to implementation of smoke management plans under the FARR. Burn managers strive to use the best available technical tools for making burn decisions and rely on best judgment and sound science. They balance many factors to determine whether burning will be allowed, including current and predicted meteorological and air quality conditions and possible local and regional impacts from burning. Due to the rapid process of evaluating weather and air quality data, it is not possible for burn managers to consider input from the public on a daily basis. However, EPA will consider how to obtain input from the public in the development of general smoke management plans, as well as the terms and conditions of burning permits, to implement these rules.

3. Comment: One State recommended that the permit application require a demonstration that alternatives to burning were considered and properly rejected and that information be considered before granting a permit.

Response: We agree with the commenter that these are good practices to follow to make burning permits more effective. Because these provisions relate primarily to implementation, however, EPA is not adding these requirements in the final rule. As we stated in the preamble to the final rule regarding open burning, EPA intends to work with Tribal, State, and local governments to identify and promote alternatives to burning.

T. Section 49.134 Rule for Forestry and Silvicultural Burning Permits 1. Comment: Two industry associations recommended that the open burning permit 8/ 19/ 04 51 requirements under § 49.132 Rule for general open burning permits be expressly exempt from this section.

Response: This rule only applies to forestry and silvicultural burning. Section 49.132 already expressly exempts forestry and silvicultural burning from the requirements of that rule. EPA sees no need to add a provision to § 49.134 that exempts forestry and silvicultural burning from § 49.132, a rule that does not apply to forestry and silvicultural burning. EPA is finalizing the rule as proposed.

2. Comment: Comments on the forestry burning permits related to how the permit program would be implemented. One Tribe suggested that EPA work closely with the Tribes to ensure that permits are coordinated with existing permits from local government authorities.

Response: EPA will work to coordinate permits issued under § 49.134 with existing permits from local government authorities. Please see the document titled " Framework for Implementation of the FARR" in the docket for an overview of EPA's plan for implementation of the FARR.

U. Section 49.135 Rule for Emissions Detrimental to Human Health or Welfare 1. Comment: Five industry associations requested that open burning, agricultural activities, agricultural burning, forestry or silvicultural activities, and forestry or silvicultural burning be exempted from this rule.

Response: These rules apply to any person who owns or operates an air pollution source within the Indian reservations. These rules are intended to prevent the emission of air pollutants from any air pollution source from causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS or being detrimental to health or welfare. Because open burning, agricultural activities, agricultural burning, and forestry or silvicultural burning are sources of air pollution that can cause these types of impacts, even when done in compliance with other requirements, EPA is not exempting them from this section of the final rule.

2. Comment: Five industry associations, four companies and one Tribe noted that this rule suggests broad authority for EPA to impose conditions in a permit in the event that a source's emissions ( 1) cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS, or ( 2) would likely be injurious to human health and welfare. The commenters stated that the latter standard  injurious to human health and welfare  is very broad, vague, and practically unenforceable and that there is, in effect, no criteria established for making this determination. One commenter stated that this provision appears to go far beyond implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The commenters urged that only the first standard  the NAAQS  be used because compliance with the NAAQS is protective of human health and welfare. The commenters felt that this section expands EPA's authority without a statutory basis and subjects sources on Indian reservations in 8/ 19/ 04 52 Idaho to potentially more stringent regulation than similar sources located off of the reservations.

Response: EPA has considered these comments and has decided not to change the rule. This rule is intended to provide EPA with an administrative mechanism for addressing a wide variety of potential air quality problems that could involve criteria pollutants, non criteria pollutants, hazardous air pollutants, or other air pollutants that uniquely impact a specific area within an Indian reservation. Since these air pollutants impact human health and welfare in different ways, it is not possible to establish, up front, criteria for making a determination. Each determination will be made on a case by case basis in an open, public manner. The final Agency action, which would be a permit to construct, permit to operate, or an order, will be subject to both administrative and judicial appeal. While EPA expects that this provision will be used most often to address NAAQS violations, it may also be utilized to address problems associated with other regulated air pollutants ( such as section 111 and 112 pollutants) where EPA is mandated to ensure the protection of public health and welfare. Finally, EPA disagrees that this provision will subject sources on Indian reservations to potentially more stringent requirements than sources located off the reservations. Nearly all State and local air authorities have broad authority to regulate emissions that are detrimental to human health and welfare, or cause a public nuisance. This provision essentially " levels the playing field" such that sources located on the reservations would be required to control their emissions so as not to cause impacts that they would not be allowed to cause outside the reservations.

3. Comment: One nonprofit foundation suggested that, to avoid potential delays, EPA remove the necessity for the Regional Administrator to make a formal determination that particular emissions are injurious to public health in order for the emissions to be prohibited under the rule.

Response: EPA has considered this comment and has decided not to change the rule. As discussed in the response to U. 2 above, this rule is intended to provide EPA with an administrative mechanism for addressing a wide variety of potential air quality problems. EPA believes that it is not appropriate or necessary to impose upon each and every air pollution source within the 39 reservations the burden of determining whether their emissions are detrimental to public health or welfare. This determination is often technically complex, costly, and requires significant expertise in a number of areas ( e. g., emissions modeling, risk assessment) and therefore we believe the determination is best left to the responsibility of air pollution authorities. Each determination will be made on a case by case basis in an open, public manner.

4. Comment: One nonprofit foundation suggested EPA should require the Regional Administrator to investigate whether emissions are or are not injurious to human health and welfare, when EPA received a credible report thereof.

Response: EPA has considered this comment and has decided it is not necessary to change the rule. EPA does not believe that it needs to establish a new non discretionary duty for EPA beyond what is specifically mandated in the CAA. This rule is only providing a regulatory process for implementing authority already established in the statute and should not bind EPA in more 8/ 19/ 04 53 respects than the statute already does.

5. Comment: One nonprofit foundation suggested EPA should change the rule to read: " If the Regional Administrator makes either of the above determinations, then the Regional Administrator shall require the owner or operator of the source to install air pollution controls or take necessary precautions to reduce or prevent the emissions."

Response: EPA has considered this comment and has decided not to change the rule. The purpose of this provision is to indicate some of the actions that the Regional Administrator could take if he/ she makes a determination that emissions from a source are detrimental to human health or welfare. The Regional Administrator could take other actions, such as an enforcement action for failing to comply with applicable requirements, or even an order under section 303 of the Act to require the source to stop emitting pollutants altogether. Or, as indicated in these examples, the Regional Administrator could require the source to get a permit in which EPA prescribes certain control requirements that must be met on an ongoing basis. EPA does not believe that it is either appropriate or necessary to limit what approach could be used to address a particular situation.

6. Comment: One nonprofit foundation suggested EPA should modify § 49.135( 2) to include the additional conditions listed in § 49.136( 2)( iii) that prohibit any emissions that the Regional Administrator determines would unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life and property.

Response: EPA has considered this comment and has decided not to change the rule. Section 49.135 and section 49.136 are intended to provide EPA with authority to address different air quality problems. Section 49.135 is focused on those air pollutants that have traditionally been regulated under sections 110, 111, and 112 of the CAA where EPA is mandated to ensure the protection of public health and welfare. Section 49.136 covers these traditional pollutants and impacts but also goes farther to provide authority to address other air quality impacts, including those values to be protected according to section 160( 2) and section 302( h) of the CAA.

V. Section 49.136 Rule for Emissions Detrimental to Persons, Property, Cultural or Traditional Resources 1. Comment: Four industry associations requested that open burning, agricultural activities, agricultural burning, forestry or silvicultural activities, and forestry or silvicultural burning be exempted from this rule.

Response: This rule applies to any person who owns or operates an air pollution source within the Nez Perce Reservation and the Umatilla Indian Reservation. This rule is intended to prevent the emission of air pollutants from any air pollution source from causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS, being detrimental to health or welfare or being detrimental to persons, property or cultural or traditional resources. Because open burning, agricultural activities, 8/ 19/ 04 54 agricultural burning, and forestry or silvicultural burning are sources of air pollution that can cause these types of impacts, even when done in compliance with other requirements, EPA is not exempting them from this section of the final rule.

2. Comment: Four industry associations, two companies, and one Tribe noted that this rule is broader in authority than § 49.135 Emissions detrimental to human health or welfare, providing authority for EPA to impose conditions in a permit in the event that a source's emissions ( 3) unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life or property, or ( 4) is damaging to unique Tribal cultural or traditional resources. The commenters stated that these standards are very broad, vague, and practically unenforceable and reiterate the comments on § 49.135. One commenter stated that this provision appears to go far beyond implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS and is beyond EPA's authority to promulgate. The commenters felt that this section expands EPA's authority without a statutory basis and subjects sources on reservations to potentially more stringent regulation than similar sources located off of the reservation.

Response: EPA has considered these comments and has decided not to change the rule for the same reasons stated above in the response to similar comments on § 49.135 ( comment U. 2). EPA does, however, acknowledge that this provision will provide authority beyond what is provided in § 49.135 and could potentially result in requirements for sources within reservations that are more stringent than for sources located off of the reservation. However, this situation is very similar to that of sources that are located near mandatory Federal Class I areas where the CAA requires the protection of the unique " air quality related values" of our national parks and wilderness areas. EPA believes that section 160( 2) and section 302( h) of the CAA provide adequate authority for EPA to establish this regulation when it is directly implementing the CAA in Indian country. EPA also believes that implementing the CAA on these reservations is consistent with the Federal government's trust responsibility to Tribes.

3. Comment: One citizen association commented that the rule is " replete with ambiguity of terms that could promulgate inappropriate or abusive use of air quality authority of Tribes or by EPA on behalf of Tribes." As an example, the commenter pointed out that there was no definition of the phrase " detrimental to unique Tribal cultural or traditional resources," thereby " leaving the door wide open for interpretation that is likely neither favorable nor fair to non Indian residents, business, and property owners." One company commented similarly that the rule could encompass almost anything and that the Tribe could ban field burning for almost any reason.

Response: EPA disagrees that the rule is vague or ambiguous and that EPA would implement the rule in a manner that would not be favorable nor fair to non Indian residents, business and property owners. First, the rule is intended to be used to address distinct and unique situations where emissions from a source or activity are having an impact. Each reservation may have unique Tribal cultural or traditional resources that are affected differently by air pollution, and need different levels of protection. Like the requirements of the CAA to protect the " air quality related values" in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas, identifying the cultural or 8/ 19/ 04 55 traditional resources, assessing the current and future impacts due to air pollution, and determining whether emissions are detrimental to those resources will be a case by case determination that involves the Tribes, EPA, and other stakeholders, including the sources of air pollution. Importantly, any determination that emissions are in fact detrimental will be made by EPA, not the Tribes. The determination will have a sound scientific basis, so under this rule, neither EPA nor a Tribe could ban field burning for just any reason. It is also important to note that this rule will only apply on two reservations  the Nez Perce Reservation in Idaho and the Umatilla Reservation in Oregon  which are also the two reservations for which EPA is promulgating agricultural burn permitting rules. It would be incongruous for EPA to establish a specific rule to regulate agricultural burning and then decide to arbitrarily ban field burning under another rule.

W. Section 49.137 Rule for Air Pollution Episodes 1. Comment: One State air agency suggested that the FIPs for reservations in Idaho be at least as stringent as IDEQ's rule for air pollution episodes. The State also commented that § § 49.131 and 49.137 appear to be in conflict and inconsistent with each other. The commenter asserted that during an air pollution alert or air stagnation advisory, a mandatory burn ban is required in § 49.131( 3), whereas a voluntary curtailment of emissions is required in § 49.137( c)( 3). The commenter also requested an explanation of the reason for the different treatment of open burning versus woodstoves, motor vehicles, and industrial sources, respectively, and whether " industrial sources" include open burning activities. The commenter also noted that § 49.131( 4) requires an open burn ban when air quality levels exceed, or are expected to exceed, 75% of the air quality standards while § 49.137 is silent on this requirement.

Response: EPA is revising both § 49.131 and § 49.137 to clarify that all open burning, except for exempted fires set for cultural or traditional purposes, is prohibited during an air stagnation advisory, air pollution alert, warning, or emergency, or when the Regional Administrator declares a burn ban because air quality levels have exceeded, or are expected to exceed, 75% of any NAAQS for particulate matter and these levels are projected to continue or recur over at least the next 24 hours. Also see response to comment A. 7. The reason open burning is prohibited during these events, but the use of woodstoves, motor vehicles, and industrial sources are not, is that open burning produces a large quantity of uncontrolled emissions that are usually trapped close to the ground when air is stagnant. Moreover, based on our understanding of the air quality situation and emission sources on the 39 reservations, we did not find that it was necessary or appropriate to require a mandatory curtailment of these other activities. Delaying open burning until air quality conditions improve has less impact on people than not being allowed to heat their home, drive, or operate their business. Therefore, we believe that prohibiting open burning during these air quality events is an appropriate way to reduce emissions. Note that the rule does call for a voluntary curtailment of emissions from woodstoves, fireplaces, motor vehicles, and industrial sources during an air stagnation advisory, air pollution alert; air pollution warning, or air pollution emergency, and during an air pollution warning or air pollution emergency, the Regional 8/ 19/ 04 56 Administrator may issue an order to any air pollution source requiring the source to curtail or eliminate the emissions. EPA's experience from implementing the air pollution episode rule and from calling burn bans will also assist EPA in determining whether additional future rulemakings are necessary or appropriate to revise the rule. In response to the comment asking whether " industrial sources" include open burning activities, we would consider open burning occurring at an industrial facility to be part of the " industrial source" under this section, and we would also consider it to be open burning, which would be prohibited during an air pollution episode or burn ban.

2. Comment: One Tribe commented that with regard to burn bans, the NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5 are not sufficient to protect health and human welfare. The Tribe suggests a one hour trigger when the PM2.5 levels reach a certain level, and recommended IDEQ's standard of 80 ug/ m3. The Tribe suggested the rule should include a one hour and 24 hour pollution alert, warning and emergency levels for PM2.5 and PM10. One nonprofit foundation suggested EPA should include a one hour average trigger to account for short term spikes in PM that cause the most severe acute health problems for sensitive people. The commenter suggested EPA should reduce the 24 hour average trigger level for a PM pollution warning or emergency because the proposed levels are too high to protect the public from health impacts from grass field burning. A couple commenters suggested that EPA should set action levels for PM2.5, once the NAAQS for PM2.5 are finalized.

Response: Please see the response in S. 5 under open burning for a discussion of burn ban levels. Commenters generally requested that EPA revise these rules to require EPA actions at lower concentrations of particulate matter than proposed in the rules. These commenters misunderstood the purpose of this section. This section is intended to fulfill the requirements of section 110( a)( 2)( G) of the Act and 40 CFR part 51, subpart H Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes, that the implementation plan include provisions to prevent imminent and substantial endangerment to public health. These provisions are not intended to prevent violations of the NAAQS. In fact, the voluntary and mandatory actions envisioned by these rules are not triggered until air quality concentrations have exceeded the ambient standards ( see 40 CFR part 51, appendix L Example Regulations for Air Pollution Emergency Episodes). Since these rules are only for the purposes of implementing the Federal requirements for emergency episodes, EPA will not change the trigger levels set forth in part 51, nor add 1 hour levels or levels for PM2.5 at this time. After EPA revises part 51 to establish levels for PM2.5 and/ or revises the PM10 levels, EPA Region 10 will revise these rules accordingly.

3. Comment: One Tribe requested that EPA add a provision whereby the Tribe is notified of real or potential threats to the reservation airshed from off reservation sources such as Hanford releases or proposed incinerators.

Response: EPA believes that the rule addresses this concern as currently drafted. If air quality within a reservation is impacted by off reservation sources such that the trigger levels are reached, EPA will issue the appropriate warnings and work with the responsible State or local agency to 8/ 19/ 04 57 reduce emissions from the contributing sources. Similarly, if on reservation sources are contributing to levels outside the reservation, and the State or local trigger levels have been reached, EPA will work with the appropriate parties to reduce emissions from on reservation sources.

4. Comment: One nonprofit foundation suggested EPA should amend the rule so that the Regional Administrator can declare an air pollution warning or emergency and curtail emissions within the reservation based on air quality monitoring information from outside the reservation boundaries. In other words, the monitor readings that trigger an air pollution episode need not only come from monitors located within the exterior boundaries of a reservation.

Response: EPA believes that the rule addresses this concern as currently drafted. The rule currently authorizes the Regional Administrator to make determinations based on data from any monitoring site. This includes monitoring sites outside a reservation that would provide information on air quality within a reservation as well.

X. Section 49.138 Rule for the Registration of Air Pollution Sources and the Reporting of Emissions 1. Comment: One industry association and one company commented that part 71 sources should be exempted from the registration rule since they are already required to provide the information through the permitting process and are required to provide information and compliance certifications on an annual basis.

Response: EPA feels that it is appropriate not to completely exempt part 71 sources from this rule. However, the final rule modifies the proposal by requiring only the submittal of annual emission reports. While part 71 sources are required to submit permit applications and then submit annual compliance certification reports, the part 71 permits do not require annual reporting of all emissions as would these rules. Part 71 permits only require reporting of emissions as necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements or to document payment of fees. However, it is important to note that the emissions information required to be collected and reported by part 71 will provide much of the information required to be submitted by this registration rule. The annual registration report will be submitted at the same time as the part 71 annual emission report and fee calculation worksheet. These reports can be combined provided that the combined report clearly identifies which emissions are the basis for the annual registration report, the part 71 annual emission report, and the part 71 fee calculation worksheet.

2. Comment: One nonprofit foundation suggested EPA should modify this rule to remove agricultural burning from the list of emission sources that are exempted from reporting to ensure the public has access to this information about major sources of PM emissions.

Response: EPA is not requiring the registration of agricultural burning activities under § 49.138. 8/ 19/ 04 58 Several other rules established in the FARR regulate open burning, including agricultural burning. EPA believes that a smoke management program under § 49.133 Rule for Agricultural Burning Permits may be designed, as appropriate, to require farmers to provide information on their burn activities. EPA is promulgating the agricultural burn permit rule for the Nez Perce Reservation and the Umatilla Indian Reservation because we have concluded, in consultation with the Tribal governments, that the requirements are appropriate. EPA is not applying the agricultural burn permit rule on other reservations because we have not yet determined that it is necessary or appropriate to promulgate the rule in those locations.

3. Comment: One State air agency requested that the rule be revised to require that copies of registration materials be provided to IDEQ.

Response: EPA is not adding a requirement to provide copies of registration materials to another agency as a matter of law. EPA will discuss with IDEQ how best to provide them with the requested information once the registration rule is in effect and EPA has received information from covered sources.

Y. Section 49.139 Rule for Non Title V Operating Permits 1. Comment: Four industry associations commented that this section should clearly state that EPA's authority to require a source to obtain an operating permit is limited to the authority granted it by the CAA.

Response: As explained elsewhere, EPA's authority to promulgate this rule and to require operating permits derives from sections 301 and 110 of the CAA, and the Tribal Authority Rule in 40 CFR part 49.

2. Comment: One State air agency requested that the rule be revised such that portable sources be included and addressed under this rule, or if applicable, a part 71 operating permit. The commenter suggested that another option would be to include a permit by rule for nonmetallic mineral process plants ( rock crushers) similar to that in Idaho's rules. The commenter noted that due to their transient status, consistent, coordinated cross boundary regulation of portable sources is particularly desirable.

Response: EPA has considered the comment to include portable sources. This rule already covers portable sources. Portable sources are air pollution sources, and are not specifically exempted from these rules. The commenter also suggested including a permit by rule for nonmetallic mineral processing plants. A permit by rule for a category of sources can be an effective way to regulate a large number of sources with similar requirements. EPA does not believe a permit by rule for nonmetallic mineral processing plants is necessary or appropriate at this time, as EPA is not aware of a large number of these sources operating within reservations, nor whether any of these sources would be required to get a permit under this rule. If many such 8/ 19/ 04 59 sources end up being required to obtain operating permits under this rule, EPA may consider a permit by rule in the future.

Z. Section 49.11105 Classification of Regions for Episode Plan 1. Comment: One Tribe commented that the classification system is no longer used for air quality planning and management; it is a remnant regulation from past CAA rules. The commenter stated that the classification does not improve the ability of the Agency to protect public health and only complicates this rule. Since the classification system is no longer used, and it is purely a holdover from previous rules, the commenter recommended removing it from the rule if possible.

Response: EPA agrees that the classification of regions is no longer used for most of the air quality planning and management requirements of the CAA as amended in 1977 and 1990. In fact, EPA has revised nearly all of its requirements for implementation plans in 40 CFR part 51 to reflect the new system of attainment and nonattainment designations for purposes of planning and management. However, EPA has retained this classification system for one regulatory program  the requirements for prevention of air pollution emergency episodes at 40 CFR part 51, subpart H ( specifically, 40 CFR 51.150 Classification of regions for episode plans). Until EPA changes the requirements of 40 CFR part 51 with respect to where emergency episode plans are required, EPA must retain and implement the classification of regions provisions.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21961-21962]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08617]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2013-0005; OMB No. 1660-0017]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use. FEMA is also correcting 1660-0017's February
5, 2013 Federal Register Notice, in this Federal Register Notice.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: 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 Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland

Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA is using this 30-day Federal Register
Notice to correct the 60-day Federal Register Notice, which FEMA
published on February 5, 2013 at 78 FR 8161. FEMA made some
mathematical errors in its calculations of the Number of Responses and
the Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours. Therefore, FEMA has corrected
those numbers in this 30-day Federal Register Notice.

Collection of Information

    Title: Public Assistance Program.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 009-0-49 Request for Public
Assistance; FEMA Form 009-0-91 Project Worksheet (PW); FEMA Form 009-0-
91A Project Worksheet (PW)--Damage Description and Scope of Work
Continuation Sheet; FEMA Form 009-0-91B Project Worksheet (PW)--Cost
Estimate Continuation Sheet; FEMA Form 009-0-91C Project Worksheet
(PW)--Maps and Sketches Sheet; FEMA Form 009-0-91D Project Worksheet
(PW)--Photo Sheet; FEMA Form 009-0-120 Special Considerations
Questions; FEMA Form 009-0-121 PNP Facility Questionnaire; FEMA Form
009-0-123 Force Account Labor Summary Record; FEMA Form 009-0-124
Materials Summary Record; FEMA Form 009-0-125 Rented Equipment Summary
Record; FEMA Form 009-0-126 Contract Work Summary Record; FEMA Form
009-0-127 Force Account Equipment Summary Record; FEMA Form 009-0-128
Applicant's Benefits Calculation Worksheet; and FEMA Form 009-0-111,
Quarterly Progress Reports.
    Abstract: The information collected is utilized by FEMA to make
determinations for Public Assistance grants based on the information
supplied by the respondents.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.
    Number of Responses: 346,940 (previously 347,123).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 361,766 (previously 341,655).
    Estimated Cost: There are no record keeping, capital, start-up
maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-08617 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33830-33831]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11006]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0936; FRL-10470-02-R9]

Clean Air Plans; 2015 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
Requirements; Clean Fuels for Fleets; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP) concerning the provisions for Clean Fuels for Fleets (CFF)
for the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (``2015 ozone
NAAQS'') in the Riverside County (Coachella Valley), Sacramento Metro,
San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles--South Coast Air Basin (South Coast),
Ventura County, and Los Angeles--San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave
Desert) nonattainment areas (NAAs). The SIP revision includes the
``California Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification for the 70 ppb Ozone
Standard'' (``Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification''), a multi-district
certification that California's Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) program
achieved emissions reductions at least equivalent to the reductions
that would be achieved by the EPA's Clean Fuels for Fleets Program,
submitted on February 3, 2022. We are approving the revision under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act''), which establishes clean fuels for
fleets requirements for ``Serious,'' ``Severe,'' and ``Extreme'' ozone
NAAs.

DATES: This rule is effective June 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0936. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with a
disability who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ledezma, Planning Section (ARD-
2-1), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. By
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On March 3, 2023, the EPA proposed to approve a revision \1\ to the
California SIP concerning the provisions for CFF for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in the Coachella Valley, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley,
South Coast, Ventura County, and West Mojave Desert NAAs.\2\ In our
March 3, 2023 proposed rulemaking, we provided background information
on the 2015 ozone standards, area designations in California, and
classifications for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this final rulemaking, we are clarifying the terminology
that we used to describe our proposed action regarding California's
Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification by changing it from
``revisions'' to the California SIP to ``a revision'' to the
California SIP. This change more accurately reflects the contents of
the submittal, which includes a single, multi-district
certification. Our change in terminology does not reflect any change
in our evaluation or action, rather, it is a clarification of the
action we are taking.
    \2\ 88 FR 13392 (March 3, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rulemaking describes the SIP revision the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted to the EPA to fulfill the CFF
requirements under section 182(c)(4) and section 246 of the CAA that
apply to the Coachella Valley, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley,
South Coast, Ventura County, and West Mojave Desert NAAs. The proposed
rulemaking explains that for Serious, Severe, and Extreme nonattainment
areas with 1980 populations greater than 250,000, a minimum specified
percentage of all new covered fleet vehicles in model year 1998 and
thereafter, purchased by each covered fleet operator in each covered
area, must be clean-fuel vehicles and must use clean alternative fuels
when operating in the covered area. The proposed rulemaking also
explains that section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA allows states to opt out
of the Federal CFF Program by submitting a SIP revision consisting of a
program or programs that will result in equivalent or greater long-term
reductions in ozone precursors. Lastly, the proposed rulemaking notes
that in 1994, CARB submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to opt out of
the Federal CFF Program and included a demonstration that California's
LEV program achieves emissions reductions at least as large as would be
achieved by the Federal program. The EPA approved the California SIP
revision to opt out of the CFF Program effective September 27, 1999.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 64 FR 46849 (August 27, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action we are approving CARB's certification that the
State's LEV program meets the CFF requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
for the Coachella Valley, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South
Coast, Ventura County, and West Mojave Desert NAAs. Please refer to our
proposed rulemaking for more information concerning the background for
this action and for a more detailed discussion of the rationale for
approval.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, the EPA received one comment from a private
individual and four anonymous comments related to the rulemaking. All
five comments were supportive of our proposed action and do not require
a response. The full text of these comments is available for viewing in
the docket for this rulemaking.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the multi-
district certification as described in our proposed action. Therefore,
as authorized in sections 182(c)(4) and 246 of the CAA, the EPA is
approving the revision to the California SIP concerning the provisions
for CFF for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the Coachella Valley, Sacramento
Metro, San Joaquin Valley,

South Coast, Ventura County, and West Mojave Desert NAAs.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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); and
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the 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).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA
did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action.
Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the
affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this
action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the
stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people
of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 24, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 18, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

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 F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(597) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (597) The following multi-district certification was submitted on
February 3, 2022, by the Governor's designee, as an attachment to a
letter dated February 3, 2022.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials. (A) California Air Resources Board.
    (1) ``California Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification for the 70
ppb Ozone Standard,'' adopted on January 27, 2022.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2023-11006 Filed 5-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P