[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 211 (Friday, October 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68822-68826]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23635]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2020-0174, FRL-10014-77-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Washington: Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
revisions to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted
by the State of Washington on June 2, 2019, through the Washington
Department of Ecology. The proposed revision, applicable in Clark,
King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Spokane Counties, Washington, removes the
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program, which was previously approved
into the SIP for use as a component of the State's plans to address on-
road sources in nonattainment areas. The SIP revision also includes a
demonstration that the requested revision to the vehicle model year
coverage will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) or with any other
applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The I/M
program will be moved from the active portion of the SIP to the
contingency portion of the applicable SIP for each area. The EPA
evaluated whether this SIP revision would interfere with the
requirements of the CAA. The EPA is proposing to determine that
Washington's June 2, 2019 SIP revision is consistent with the
applicable portions of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2020-0174, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not electronically submit any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Pepple, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue--Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it means the EPA.

I. Background

    Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies
used to attain and maintain the NAAQS established by the EPA for the
criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone,
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide). The SIP contains such elements as
air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, attainment
demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms. Section 110 of the CAA
requires each state to periodically revise its SIP. As a result, the
SIP is a living compilation of regulatory and non-regulatory elements
that are updated to address federal requirements and changing air
quality issues in the state.
    The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) implements and
enforces the Washington SIP through rules set out in the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC). Chapter 173-422 WAC, which details
Washington's I/M program, applies in parts of Clark, King, Pierce,
Snohomish, and Spokane Counties. The Department of Ecology included an
I/M program in nonattainment SIPs in the 1980s for CO, as required by
the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1977.\1\ The I/M program was later included in SIPs for
ozone and PM10 in the 1990s.2 3 4 5 These
nonattainment SIPs accomplished their purpose, as these areas were all
redesignated to attainment with approved maintenance plans. Currently
there are no nonattainment areas in the state of Washington. Ecology
has requested that EPA, in acting upon this SIP submission, remove
these I/M program requirements from the above-referenced portions of
the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ecology began an I/M program in King, Pierce, and Snohomish
Counties (the Seattle-Tacoma area). In 1985 the program was extended
to the Vancouver portion of the Portland nonattainment area (Clark
County), and the Spokane area (Spokane County).
    \2\ Ozone is not directly emitted from mobile sources. These
sources emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX), which can react in the presence of sunlight to
form ozone.
    \3\ Ecology submitted ozone nonattainment SIPs for the Puget
Sound area (King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties) and the Vancouver
portion (Clark County) of the Portland-Vancouver nonattainment area
that listed I/M as a control measure.
    \4\ PM10 is particulate matter 10 micrometers and
smaller in diameter.
    \5\ Ecology submitted PM10 nonattainment SIPs for the
Seattle-Kent-Tacoma area (King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties) that
listed I/M as a control measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State Legislature adopted a modification to the Washington
Emission Check I/M program in 2005, which established an end date for
the state program of December 31, 2019. This same legislative action
also adopted California's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program starting
with model year 2009, and exempted both 2009 and newer vehicles as well
as vehicles over 25 years old from I/M requirements. On June 2, 2019
Ecology submitted a SIP to the EPA moving the I/M program to the
contingency portion of each relevant SIP.
    In this submission, Ecology opted to move the I/M program to the
contingency measure portion of the applicable SIP for all five
counties. Clark, King, and Pierce Counties are beyond the 20-year
maintenance period for CO. The 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked,\6\ but
the counties of Clark, King, and Pierce would be beyond the 20-year
maintenance period had the NAAQS remained in place. Of the five
impacted counties, only the King-Pierce-Snohomish PM10 area
and the Spokane carbon monoxide (CO) area are not beyond the 20-year
maintenance period required by the CAA. Ecology is moving the I/M
program to the contingency measure portion of each SIP for all areas in
the state that had implemented I/M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 69 FR 23951; April 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 175A and 40 CFR 51.372 of the I/M regulations,
areas that have been redesignated to attainment may move control
measures from the active portion of their SIP to the contingency
measures portion of their maintenance plans if they can demonstrate
that such a SIP revision would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, per section 110(l) of the CAA. Some of these
counties were redesignated to attainment more than 20 years ago for
some of the pollutants at issue (e.g., Clark, King, and Pierce for CO
and 1-hour ozone). The state is opting to retain I/M as a contingency
measure for all counties and for all the applicable NAAQS.
    Contingency measures, in this case, are the list of measures that
Ecology will consider if a violation of the NAAQS occurs in the future
in one of these maintenance areas. In the event of a future violation,
Ecology commits to work with the local clean air agency to determine
the cause of the violation. If mobile source emissions are indicated
and an I/M program could address the violation, Ecology commits to work
with the state legislature to acquire the authority to adopt and
implement the I/M program.

II. Applicable Authorities for Moving the I/M Program to a Contingency
Measure in the Washington SIP

    Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that each revision to a SIP
submitted by a State under the Act shall be adopted by the State after
reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not
approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The I/M
regulations (40 CFR 51.372(c)) provide that I/M can be moved to the
contingency portion of the SIP.
    A State's obligation to comply with each of the NAAQS is considered
as ``any applicable requirement(s) concerning attainment.'' A
demonstration is necessary to show that this revision will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, including those
for CO, ozone, or any other requirement of the Act.
    Three areas in Washington state were formerly designated as CO
nonattainment areas. Both the Spokane CO Nonattainment area (Spokane
County) and the Puget Sound CO nonattainment area (King, Pierce, and
portions of Snohomish Counties) were classified as ``Moderate'' with a
design value over 12.7 ppm. The Vancouver CO nonattainment area was
classified as a Moderate' area with a design value less than 12.7 ppm.
Based on these nonattainment designations, classifications and the area
populations, a basic I/M program was required in the Vancouver area,
while enhanced I/M programs were required in the Puget Sound and
Spokane CO nonattainment areas. The EPA redesignated the Puget Sound
area to attainment for the CO standard in a final action effective
November 11, 1996 (61 FR 53323, October 11, 1996). The Vancouver area
was redesignated to attainment in a final action effective October 21,
1996 (61 FR 54560, October 21, 1996). Finally, the Spokane area was
redesignated to attainment in a final action effective August 29, 2005
(70 FR 37269, June 29, 2005). All three of these areas submitted the
required second 10-year maintenance plans, with Spokane and Vancouver
converting to Limited Maintenance Plans. The EPA approved these
maintenance plans.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Vancouver: 73 FR 36439, June 27, 2008; Spokane: 81 FR 45419,
July 14, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four counties in Washington were designated as nonattainment for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS: King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, making up
the Seattle-Tacoma area, and Clark County, part of the Portland-
Vancouver area. These counties in Washington were already implementing
I/M due to earlier CO requirements. The EPA redesignated the Seattle-
Tacoma area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in a final
action effective November 25, 1996 (61 FR 50438, September 26, 1996).
The EPA approved the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Seattle-
Tacoma before revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS.\8\ Regarding Clark
County, the only county in Washington that was part of the Portland-
Vancouver 1-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area, the EPA redesignated
the area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in a final action
effective June 18, 1997 (62 FR 27204, May 19, 1997). The 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was revoked before a second 10-year maintenance plan was
submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 69 FR 47365, August 5, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, the ``Seattle-Kent-Tacoma
area,'' were formerly designated nonattainment for the PM10
NAAQS. Designation as nonattainment for particulate matter does not
trigger I/M requirements. However, in the development of the
PM10 nonattainment SIP, Ecology included reference to the
existing I/M program as a measure to reduce other CO and ozone
precursors. The EPA redesignated the Seattle-Kent-Tacoma area to
attainment for the PM10

standard in a final action effective May 14, 2001 (66 FR 14492, March
13, 2001).

III. Evaluation of Submission

A. Vehicle Emission Trends in Washington State

    The June 2, 2019, Washington SIP submittal seeking removal of the
I/M Program from the active portion of the SIP includes an evaluation
of projected changes in mobile source emissions in the future. The
analysis focuses on the emissions of: CO, NOX and VOC (both
of which are precursors to the 1-hour ozone), and PM2.5.\9\
Ecology used the EPA's MOVES2014a model to assess emissions for years
2005, 2010, 2015, 2019, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ PM10 was not analyzed due to on-road sources
contributing a small percentage to the overall PM10
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 of this preamble, shows the percent difference in the
mobile source emissions reductions between calendar year 2019, the last
year of I/M implementation, with 2020, the first year without I/M. The
I/M program in 2019 applied to vehicle model years 1994 through 2008.
The assumptions in Table 1 account for increases in vehicle miles of
travel in each county. The assessments in Table 1 correspond to the
seasons in which the former nonattainment area had established motor
vehicle emissions budgets.
    Assessed wintertime CO emissions continue to decrease in King,
Pierce, Snohomish, and Spokane Counties. These reductions are the
result of fleet turnover, and the implementation of more stringent
engine standards in the newer vehicles. There is a projected 0.4%
increase in wintertime CO emissions from Clark County in calendar year
2020.
    Projected summertime CO emissions demonstrate a similar pattern,
with all counties except for Clark demonstrating continued reductions.
Clark County is projected to experience a 2.5% increase in CO emissions
in calendar year 2020. Clark County experiences a slight increase in
both winter and summer CO emissions with removal of the I/M program.
This seems to be the result of a combination of the growth rate in
Clark County, combined with a generally older vehicle fleet. As these
older vehicles are replaced with new vehicles, the emissions reductions
are projected to resume, but at a slightly slower rate than with an I/M
program.
    Ozone, a criteria pollutant, is formed in photochemical reactions
in the atmosphere involving NOX and VOCs. Ecology projected
differences in ozone precursor emissions for 2019 and 2020. All
assessed counties are projected to continue to experience reductions in
NOX. Most counties are also projected to experience
reductions in VOCs as well. The exception is Clark County, which is
projected to experience a 0.3% increase in VOC emissions in calendar
year 2020. As explained earlier, this temporary increase is due to the
combination of the growth rate in Clark County and a slightly older
vehicle population.
    Ecology also calculated winter PM2.5 impacts for Pierce
County. An I/M program is not required by the CAA for PM areas. In
fact, the MOVES model calculates no benefit to PM concentrations from
an I/M program. The PM2.5 benefits represented in Table 1
are due to fleet turnover and continued implementation of new engine
and fuel standards.

         Table 1--Percent Difference in On-Road Emissions Between 2019 (With I/M) and 2020 (Without I/M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      County
            Pollutant            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Clark           King           Pierce         Snohomish        Spokane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winter CO.......................             0.4            -1.6            -1.8            -1.6            -1.6
Summer CO.......................             2.5            -0.3            -0.5            -0.4               -
Summer NOX......................            -4.7            -7.5            -6.9            -7.1               -
Summer VOC......................             0.3            -2.0            -1.7            -1.7               -
Winter PM2.5....................               -               -            -6.2               -               -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ecology also estimated long-term emission reductions in these
counties. The MOVES modeling looked at an outlying year of 2040.
Despite increased vehicle miles traveled in each county, emissions
continue to decrease after removal of the I/M program.

                 Table 2--Percent Difference in On-Road VMT and Emissions Between 2000 and 2040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      County
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Clark           King           Pierce         Snohomish        Spokane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Daily VMT...............             126              17              38              36              45
Winter CO emissions.............             -88             -91             -91             -91             -91
Summer CO emissions.............             -86             -91             -91             -90               -
Summer NOX emissions............             -90             -95             -95             -94               -
Summer VOC emissions............             -85             -90             -88             -88               -
Winter PM2.5 emissions..........               -               -  ..............               -               -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, emissions in the five Washington Counties are generally
projected to decrease even if the I/M program is discontinued.
Emissions of CO and VOC are projected to increase in Clark County in
2020; however, the overall downward trend of emissions continues after
2020. This continued decrease in emissions, despite increases in VMT,
are the result of fleet turnover, with old vehicles being replaced with
new vehicles that meet more stringent engine standards. In addition,
because the I/M program was applying to a decreasing population of
vehicles in the five counties \10\ emissions reductions associated with
the program also were expected to decrease. In sum, emissions

are anticipated to continue decreasing into the future as the fleet
turns over, despite projected increases in vehicle miles of travel in
these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Vehicle model years 2009 and newer were exempted from the
I/M program, as well as vehicles 25 years old and older.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA reviewed the on-road modeling performed by the Washington
Department of Ecology. These emissions trends agree with EPA
projections of on-road emissions. This emission trends analysis shows
that emission decreases are expected even if the proposed SIP revision
is approved. It thus demonstrates generally that any change in
emissions associated with the removal of the I/M program are relatively
minor compared to the emission reductions associated with the turnover
of older, higher emitting vehicles for newer, lower-emitting vehicles.

B. Monitoring Values and Event Data

    All areas in the state of Washington are either designated as
attainment/unclassifiable, unclassifiable, or attainment for the
NAAQS.\11\ Areas are designated as attainment/unclassifiable when the
design value shows it is below the NAAQS for the criteria pollutant in
question. Areas are designated unclassifiable when there is
insufficient data for either an attainment/unclassifiable or a
nonattainment classification. Areas designated attainment have been
redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan. At this
time, there are no nonattainment areas in Washington. Designations are
based on design values, which are calculated from monitoring data. The
Washington Department of Ecology meets all monitoring requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
averaging time, and form, please visit https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. For a review of current and historical
designations in the State of Washington by criteria pollutant,
please visit https://www.epa.gov/green-book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ecology addressed air quality design values for CO, NO2,
and ozone in the five I/M counties as part of this submittal. The 2017
design values included in this submittal were based on 2015-2017 data,
which represent the latest available data when the SIP was developed
and submitted. Design values for CO and NO2 were well below
the NAAQS. It should be noted that some monitors have been discontinued
due to consistent low concentrations as compared to the NAAQS.
    Ozone design values for Clark (63 ppb) and Spokane (62 ppb)
Counties were below the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb. However, the
3-year design value for the Enumclaw monitor in King County had a
design value of 76 ppb, which is above the NAAQS. This design value is
the result of wildfire impacts in addition to typical emissions in King
County. Here, ``typical emissions'' refers to usual anthropogenic
emissions produced by mobile sources, area sources, and point sources
on a representative seasonal day.

C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)

    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides that ``. . . The
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress (as defined in [CAA section 171]) or
any other applicable requirement of [the CAA].'' 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
Section 110(l) applies to all requirements of the CAA and to all areas
of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment, unclassifiable or
maintenance for one or more of the six criteria pollutants. EPA
interprets section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect,
including those for which SIP submissions have not been made. EPA
considers the impact of the SIP revision on emissions and/or ambient
concentrations of any pollutant. Additionally, a state may substitute
equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a plan
to ensure actual emissions to the air are not increased and thus
preserve status quo air quality.
    All areas within the state of Washington are designated attainment
for all NAAQS. These areas are attaining with current on-road emission
levels. On-road emissions will continue to decrease as older vehicles
are replaced with newer, lower-emitting vehicles. Continued emissions
decreases are projected to occur despite population growth due to
engine and fuel standards. These same controls will continue the
downward trend in on-road emissions even if this SIP revision is
approved.
    The emission trends analysis for King County also shows that on-
road emissions generally will continue to decrease even if the proposed
SIP revision is approved. In addition, Ecology provided a detailed
analysis of the causes for the high values at the Enumclaw monitor in
King County. As illustrated by Ecology, the Enumclaw monitor was
significantly impacted by wildfire smoke in 2017. The 4th highest ozone
value at the Enumclaw monitor in 2017 was 94 ppb. In comparison, the
4th highest value in 2018 at the same monitor was 77 ppb. There was
significantly less wildfire smoke in 2018 compared to 2017. The 4th
highest value in 2019 was 55 ppb. The higher values in Enumclaw were a
result of wildfire smoke related impacts and unrelated to any
anthropogenic sources of emissions (mobile, area, or stationary) that
occur on a typical day.
    Based on our evaluation of the analysis submitted by the state of
Washington, the EPA proposes to conclude that the removal of the I/M
program will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate by reference in the
Washington SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c) the submittal moving the I/M
program located at WAC 173-422 from the actively implemented portion of
the Washington SIP to the contingency measure portion of the SIP. The
EPA believes Ecology's demonstration of continued attainment meets
Section 110(l) requirements. The EPA is requesting comments on the
proposed approval.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to remove, in a final EPA
rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
remove the current incorporation by reference of WAC Chapter 173-422 as
identified in Section I of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);

     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 it does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the 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 in
Washington except as specifically noted further down in this paragraph
and is also not approved to apply 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). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust
land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation,
also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided
state and local agencies in Washington authority over activities on
non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with EPA
policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup
Tribe in a letter dated August 9, 2019.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: October 20, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-23635 Filed 10-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38135-38138]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0213]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Burke Lakefront Airport, Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a security zone for certain
navigable waters of Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH. This action is necessary
to protect the public and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts,
sabotage, or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a
similar nature. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from
being in the security zone unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Buffalo or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective September 5, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0213 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, contact LT Sean Dolan, Chief Waterways Management
Division at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    Previously, COTP Buffalo implemented emergent security zones around
Burke Lakefront Airport, Cleveland, OH, whenever Senior Government
Officials or foreign dignitaries utilized the airport. On April 29,
2019, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
titled Security Zone; Burke Lakefront Airport, Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH
(84 FR 17981). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited

comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this security
zone. During the comment period that ended June 28, 2019, we received
one comment.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70051. The purpose of the rulemaking is to ensure the safety and
security of vessels, the public, and navigable waters within the
security zone before, during, and after the arrival and departure of
certain individuals. The COTP Buffalo determined that a security zone
is necessary to protect those within the security zone and surrounding
area from terrorist acts, sabotage, or other subversive acts,
accidents, or other causes of a similar nature.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published April
29, 2019. The comment stated based upon our listed coordinates that we
had the wrong distance contained within the zone. The comment also
requested that we include a statement about the datum of the
coordinates. In response to the comment we updated the distance from
the shore covered by the security zone, and included a statement about
the datum of the coordinates. There are no other changes in the
regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a security zone that will be enforced only
upon notice by the COTP Buffalo. The COTP Buffalo will provide notice
of enforcement of the security zone established by this section,
including publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in
accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also
include, but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local
Notice to Mariners. The COTP Buffalo will also issue a Broadcast Notice
to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the security zone
is established by this section is suspended.
    The security zone will encompass all waters in Lake Erie within a
line connecting the following geographical positions: 41[deg]31'45'' N,
081[deg]39'20'' W; then extending northwest to 41[deg]32'23'' N,
081[deg]39'46'' W; then extending southwest to 41[deg]31'02'' N,
081[deg]42'10'' W; then extending southwest to the shoreline at
41[deg]30'38'' N, 081[deg]41'53'' W (NAD 83); then following the
shoreline back to the point of origin.
    The Captain of the Port Buffalo determined that the security zone
in this rule is necessary to protect Senior Government Officials or
foreign dignitaries. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the
security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his or her
designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at
716-843-9525.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the need to
protect individuals, personnel, vessels, the public, and surrounding
waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage, or other subversive acts,
accidents or other causes of a similar nature. We conclude that this
rule will have a minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with
other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or
loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues.
The security zone created by this rule will be relatively small,
effective only during the time necessary to protect individuals,
personnel, vessels, the public, and surrounding waterways, and is
designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the
security zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it.
Thus restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are
expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may
still transit through the security zone when permitted by the Captain
of the Port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that
Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a security zone
that encompasses all waters in Lake Erie within a line connecting the
following geographical positions: 41[deg]31'45'' N, 081[deg]39'20'' W;
then extending northwest to 41[deg]32'23'' N, 081[deg]39'46'' W; then
extending southwest to 41[deg]31'02'' N, 081[deg]42'10'' W; then
extending southwest to the shoreline at 41[deg]30'38'' N,
081[deg]41'53'' W (NAD 83); then following the shoreline back to the
point of origin. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L[60](a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.913 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.913  Security Zone; Burke Lakefront Airport, Lake Erie,
Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Location. This security zone includes all waters extending from
the surface to the sea floor within approximately 650 yards seaward
from the shoreline of the Burke Lakefront Airport and encompasses all
waters in Lake Erie within a line connecting the following geographical
positions: 41[deg]31'45'' N, 081[deg]39'20'' W; then extending
northwest to 41[deg]32'23'' N, 081[deg]39'46'' W; then extending
southwest to 41[deg]31'02'' N, 081[deg]42'10'' W; then extending
southwest to the shoreline at 41[deg]30'38'' N, 081[deg]41'53'' W (NAD
83); then following the shoreline back to the point of origin.
    (b) Definitions. (1) Designated representative means any Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officers designated by the
Captain of the Port Buffalo to monitor a security zone, permit entry
into a security zone, give legally enforceable orders to persons or
vessels within a security zone, and take other actions authorized by
the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    (2) Public vessel means a vessel that is owned, chartered, or
operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision
thereof.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.33 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo or her designated on-scene representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated
representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren,
radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall
proceed as directed.
    (3) All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port
Buffalo or a designated representative to enter, move within, or exit
the security zone established in this section when the security zone is
enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the security
zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or a designated representative. While within the security
zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course.
    (d) Notice of Enforcement or Suspension of Enforcement. The
security zone established by this section will be enforced only upon
notice of the Captain of the Port Buffalo. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo will cause notice of enforcement of the security zone
established by this section to be made by all appropriate means to the
affected segments of the public including publication in the Federal
Register as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means
of notification may also include, but are not limited to Broadcast
Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public
when enforcement of the security zone established by this section is
suspended.
    (e) Exemption. Public vessels as defined in paragraph (b) of this
section are exempt from the requirements in this section.
    (f) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a
designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this
section, upon finding that operational conditions or other
circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary
or impractical for the purposes of safety or environmental safety.
    (g) Authority. In addition to 46 U.S.C. 70034 and 46 U.S.C. 70051,
the authority for this section includes 46 U.S.C. 70116.

    Dated: July 29, 2019.
L.M. Littlejohn,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2019-16730 Filed 8-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Fuel Quality Regulations for Nonroad, Locomotive, and Marine Diesel Fuel EPA ICR 1718.07 Spring 2004 Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality Office of Air and Radiation U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title Of The Information Collection ICR: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Fuel Quality Regulations for Nonroad, Locomotive, and Marine Diesel Fuel. OMB Control Number: 2060 0308 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract Nonroad diesel engines are the largest remaining contributor to the overall mobile source emissions inventory. We have already taken steps to dramatically reduce emissions from lightduty vehicles and engines through the Tier 2 and 2007 highway diesel programs. With expected growth in the nonroad sector, the relative emissions contribution is projected to be even larger in later years. This final rule sets out emissions standards for nonroad engines used in construction, farming, and mining operation that will achieve over 90% reduction in emissions levels from today's engines. Additionally, sulfur levels in nonroad diesel fuel will be reduced, including diesel fuel used in locomotive and marine applications, first to 500 parts per million ( ppm) and then further to 15 ppm. Taken together, controls included in this final rule would result in large public health and welfare benefits. As was the case with the Tier 2 and 2007 highway diesel programs, this program will treat vehicles and fuels as a system, combining requirements for much cleaner vehicles with requirements for much lower levels of sulfur in diesel fuel.

This nonroad diesel final rule sets out new engine exhaust emissions standards, sulfur control requirements for nonroad diesel fuel, and new engine emissions test procedures.

The pollution emitted by diesel engines contributes greatly to our nation's continuing air quality problems. EPA is introducing a rule that would establish standards for the quality of nonroad, locomotive and marine diesel fuel. These fuel standards by themselves will provide dramatic, cost effective emission benefits. However, in addition, new emissions standards for nonroad engines will apply starting with model year 2008. Since the new technology developed will require low sulfur diesel fuel ( 15 ppm sulfur or less), the regulations require the availability of this fuel starting by no later than June 1, 2010. The overall reduction, however, is accomplished in two steps, with the first step to 500 ppm sulfur occurring on June 1, 2007 The diesel sulfur rule contains many types of flexibility aimed at reducing burdens on small businesses and those faced with particular hardships. The fuel program design will be 2 implemented stepwise for the years 2007, 2010 and 2014 and beyond. By 2014, however, these flexibilities will end, and all NRLM diesel fuel produced must meet the final 15 ppm standard. The only exception is downgrade produced in the distribution system, which can continue to be sold into the locomotive and marine markets, if it meets the 500 ppm sulfur cap.

This Information Collection Request ( ICR) would specifically address the requirements to ensure compliance and make ICR additions to the existing fuels regulations applicable to nonroad, locomotive and marine diesel fuel. The additional requirements covered under this ICR are included in the final rule.

The information under this ICR will be collected by EPA's Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation ( OAR), and by EPA's Air Enforcement Division, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA). The information collected will be used by EPA to evaluate compliance with nonroad, locomotive, and marine diesel sulfur control requirements under the final rule. This oversight by EPA is necessary to ensure attainment of the air quality goals of the program.

The scope of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for each type of party ( e. g., refiners, distributors, marketers, or retailers of diesel), and therefore the cost to that party, reflects the party's opportunity to create, control or alter the sulfur content of diesel fuel. As a result, refiners and importers will generally have more requirements than parties downstream from the diesel production or import point, such as retailers. EPA has made every effort to minimize recordkeeping and reporting burdens and to ensure that parties do not have to submit duplicate information. For example, a refiner or importer who has already registered under the reformulated gasoline and anti dumping program ( ICR number 1591.13, OMB control number 2060 0277) is not required to resubmit the same information for purposes of this program.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority For The Collection EPA's nonroad diesel rule establishes a comprehensive national control program that will regulate equipment and its fuel as a single system. As part of this program, new emissions standards for nonroad engines will begin to take effect in model year 2008. These standards are based on the use of highefficiency catalytic exhaust emission control devices or 3 comparably effective advanced technologies. Because these devices are damaged by sulfur, we, in parallel, are reducing the level of sulfur in diesel fuel significantly at appropriate times. The program provides substantial flexibility for refiners, especially small refiners, and for manufacturers of engines and equipment. These options will ensure that there is widespread availability and supply of the low sulfur diesel fuel from the very beginning of the program and that high sulfur and low sulfur fuels are segregated at all points in the distribution system. This rule also provides for exemptions, upon application, for research, development, and testing purposes.

This supporting statement describes the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and the associated costs to various parties ( e. g., refiners, importers, distributors, and retailers of diesel fuel). These requirements are necessary to enable the Administrator to:

( 1) Identify the sources of nonroad, locomotive, and marine ( NRLM) diesel fuel; and ( 2) Ensure that these source parties comply with the standards and limitations of the rules.

( 3) Ensure that these parties do not utilize the provisions of this rule to circumvent compliance with the 2007 highway diesel fuel rule.

An effective enforcement scheme is necessary to ensure that the environmental goals of the nonroad diesel program are met, and that those complying with the requirements in good faith are not disadvantaged by noncomplying parties. The nonroad diesel program requirements create a significant economic incentive for noncompliance.

Sections 114 and 208 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA), 42 U. S. C. § § 7414 and 7542, authorize EPA to require recordkeeping and reporting regarding enforcement of the provisions of Title II of the CAA. Relevant portions of the statutes referenced above can be found in the Attachment. The current regulations applicable to nonroad, locomotive and marine diesel fuel can be found in 40 CFR Part 80, Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives. The regulations associated with the information collection are contained in the final rule for the nonroad diesel rulemaking.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data EPA will use the information contained in the reports required by this information collection to evaluate the 4 compliance of parties involved in the production, importation and distribution of diesel with the nonroad, locomotive, and marine diesel fuel requirements. These reports will also be used by EPA to target compliance investigations. Any baseline information submitted by refiners in order to generate early credits will be used to ensure that credits generated are correctly determined. PTDs maintained by parties in the diesel fuel distribution system and records related to diesel blending will be used to evaluate the compliance of the parties that maintain the records, and to help evaluate upstream compliance. Fuel batch designation and volume records and reports will be used to evaluate compliance with both the final nonroad standards and the final highway diesel fuel standards.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication in this information collection. Where possible, information requirements from various organizations within the Agency have been combined to minimize the submittal of duplicate information in different formats. The information in this collection will not be available from another source.

To minimize the information collection burden, refiners and importers who are registered under the RFG program ( 40 CFR 80.76) are considered to have satisfied the registration requirements under the diesel rule. This also applies to the registration requirements for refiners subject to the small refiner or temporary hardship relief provisions.

3( b) Public Notice Prior to Submission to OMB We published a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on May 23, 2003 regarding requirements for low sulfur nonroad diesel fuel. We have received comments on several issues related to information collection. The most significant of these comments were recommendations from representatives for all parts of the fuel production and distribution system ( e. g., refiners, pipelines, terminals, wholesalers, retailers) to adopt the socalled designate and track approach for compliance assurance rather than the proposed baseline approach. The designate and track approach, which we have indeed adopted in response to comments for the final rule, requires additional recordkeeping and reporting of fuel receipts and transfers throughout the distribution system. However, in exchange it provides fuel distributors with considerable flexibility in the fungible distribution of similar fuels. Industry assured the Agency that these records were analogous to records that were already kept as 5 a part of normal business practices and therefore would not represent a significant additional burden. This ICR reflects the final designate and track provisions.

We received comment that we should only require the reporting of either cetane or aromatics content, not both. For the final rule, we have in fact dropped the reporting requirement for both of these fuel parameters.

3( c) Consultations EPA held a series of in depth meetings and discussions with representatives for all sectors of the diesel fuel distribution system in developing the recordkeeping and reporting provisions that comprise the designate and track program and are reflected in this information collection request. The final regulations, and this ICR, reflect the input and general agreement reached with industry of the appropriate and necessary recordkeeping and reporting elements, while avoiding unnecessary burden. For example, the compliance periods were adjusted to be consistent with internal industry accounting periods.

As part of its effort to comply with the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) requirements, EPA met several times with small entity representatives. Additionally, EPA convened an intergovernmental panel, in accordance with the SBREFA, which met with small entity representatives and made specific recommendations to EPA regarding the impact of diesel sulfur control on small businesses. These recommendations were carefully considered by EPA in developing the final rules and the specific provisions for qualifying small refiners. A copy of the Panel's report is available in the docket for this regulatory action. The Panel report contains a list of the fuel industry's participating small entity representatives, and provides a summary of their comments.

3( d) Effect of Less Frequent Collection The diesel rule requires refiners, importers and distributors to submit annual reports, which will, by the information contained therein, demonstrate a party's compliance with the applicable sulfur standards. Additionally, during the initial implementation period ( June 2007 to May 2010) submission of quarterly reports would be required. Less frequent submittal of such reports would severely hinder EPA's ability to monitor compliance, and would likely lead to noncompliance.

3( e) General Guidelines This information collection activity complies with the 6 guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6, except that respondents are required to keep certain records for longer than three years. Specifically, all parties are required to keep PTDs and records of quality assurance testing ( if conducted) for five years. Refiners, importers and fuel distributors are also required to keep their compliance records for five years. The designation records and PTD information will facilitate EPA's identification of the source of any diesel fuel found to be in violation of the sulfur standard. These recordkeeping requirements should impose little additional burden. Five years is the applicable statute of limitations for fuel programs. See 28 U. S. C. 2462.

Refiners, fuel distributors and importers will be submitting a limited amount of proprietary information in their annual reports. Those submitting a baseline or applying for one of the flexibility options such as small refiner, or temporary relief provisions, will be submitting additional proprietary information.

This type of information has been collected in the past and will be safeguarded in the same manner as data required by other EPA directives. Pertinent information, whether kept by the respondent or by a contractor, is subject to auditing by EPA. Consequently, EPA officials will require entry and access to facilities.

3( f) Confidentiality As discussed in 3( e) above, proprietary information will be submitted by refiners, distributors and importers. Confidentiality for such information is covered by established Agency procedures and the regulations at 40 CFR Part 2.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No questions of a sensitive nature are asked in this information collection.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to this information collection are:  Refiners ( both domestic and foreign refiners who manufacture diesel for use in the U. S.)  Importers of diesel into the U. S.  Diesel distributors, carriers, wholesale purchaserconsumers and retailers  Users of research and development diesel ( testing laboratories) 7 Recordkeeping and, in some cases, reporting are required by the following industries: refiners ( 2911), importers ( 5172), pipelines ( 4613), petroleum marketers and and other distributors ( 5171,5172), terminals ( 4226), fuel oil dealers ( 5983), fuel additive manufacturers ( 5172, 2911), and petroleum retailers and wholesale purchaser consumers ( 5541).

Some of the required records  like product transfer documents  ( PTDs) are generated and maintained in the normal course of business ( i. e., customary business practices, or " CBP"). Even the fuel designations and records tracking the volumes are the very records fuel distributors collect and maintain for financial accounting purposes in the normal course of business.

4( b) Information Requested 1. Data Items Definitions of the terms and data used in reporting are given in 40 CFR § 80.2 and § 80.501.

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements a. General Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Applicable to Refiners and Importers Registration. ( See 40 CFR § 80.597.) The nonroad diesel sulfur program requires that refiners, distributors and importers who are either currently producing and supplying nonroad diesel fuel, or that expect to do so, register. Where a registrant has already provided information under the reformulated gasoline and antidumping program ( see 40 CFR § 80.76), that registrant is not required to re register under this diesel program.

Pre Compliance Reports. ( See 40 CFR § 80.594.) As with the highway diesel program, we require that each refiner and importer provide annual reports on the compliance progress of and plans for each of their refineries or import facilities towards meeting the nonroad diesel sulfur standard as specified in the final rule. The pre compliance reports are due June 1 of each year beginning in 2005 and continuing through 2009, or until the production of 15 ppm sulfur NRLM diesel fuel commences, whichever is later.

Pre compliance reports may be submitted electronically or on paper and must describe any changes related to registration, volume estimates for both 15 ppm and 500 ppm diesel fuel to be produced from crude oil and other sources, estimates as to the number of credits to be earned and/ or used, and information 8 indicating progress toward making necessary capital commitments and modifications to produce 15 ppm diesel fuel by the appropriate date. Pre compliance reports can, at the discretion of the refiner/ importer, be submitted in conjunction with the annual compliance reports discussed below and/ or the precompliance and annual compliance reports required under the highway diesel program, as long as all of the information that is required in all reports is provided and clearly identified.

Compliance Reports for Refiners, Importers, and Distributors of Designated Diesel Fuel. ( See 40 CFR § § 80.592( b) and 80.593.)

a. Designate and Track Reporting Requirements i. Quarterly Reports. From December 1, 2007 and through September 1, 2010, all entities who are required to maintain records must report the following information by facility to EPA on a quarterly basis: ( a) the total volume of each type of designated diesel fuel for which custody was transferred, and ( b) the total volume of each type of designated diesel fuel for which custody was received. Terminals must also report the results of all compliance calculations including the total volumes received and transferred of each fuel designation.

ii. Annual Reports. Beginning December 1, 2007, all entities that are required to maintain records for batches of fuel must report by facility on an annual basis information on the total volumes transferred and/ or received of each fuel designation, as well as the results of all compliance calculations.

b. Other Reporting Requirements After the NRLM diesel fuel sulfur requirements begin on June 1, 2007, refiners and importers will be required to submit annual compliance reports for each refinery or import facility. If a refiner produces 15 ppm sulfur or 500 ppm sulfur fuel early under the credit provisions, its annual compliance reporting requirements will start on June 1 following the beginning of the early fuel production. These reporting requirements will sunset after all flexibility provisions end ( 2004). Annual compliance reports will be due on August 31.

A refiner's or importer's annual compliance report must include detailed information for each of its facilities: ( a) batch reports for each batch produced or imported; ( b) report on the generation, use, transfer and retirement of diesel sulfur credits; a small refiner that elects to produce 15 ppm sulfur NRLM diesel fuel by June 1, 2006 must also supply gasoline sulfur levels information and progress toward highway and NRLM diesel 9 sulfur desulfurization.

Product transfer documents. ( See 40 CFR § 80.590.) Refiners, importers, and other parties in the distribution system must provide information on commercial PTDs that identify diesel fuel distributed for use in motor vehicles or nonroad, locomotive, or marine diesel equipment, as appropriate, and state the sulfur standard which the fuel is subject to ( PTDs must state whether the highway or NRLM diesel fuel complies with the 500 ppm or the 15 ppm sulfur standard). The PTD must indicate whether the fuel is No. 1 or No. 2, dyed or undyed, and marked or unmarked.

This additional information on commercial PTDs is necessary to maintain the integrity of the various grades of diesel fuel in the distribution system. Parties in the system will be better able to identify which type of fuel they are dealing with and more effectively ensure that they are meeting the requirements of the program. This approach will help to ensure that misfueling of sulfur sensitive engines does not occur and that the program achieves its goal, that is emissions reduction. ( See 40 CFR § 69.51( a)( 2) and ( c)( 2).)

For details on Recordkeeping Requirements for Refiners and Importers, Recordkeeping Requirements for Distributors, and Recordkeeping Requirements for End Users, see 40 CFR 80.600  80.604.

c. Record Retention. A retention time period of five years for all records is required under this rule. This is the same period of time required in other fuel rules, and it coincides with the applicable statute of limitations. This retention period applies to PTDs, records required under the designate and track provisions, records of any test results performed by any regulated party for quality assurance purposes or otherwise, along with supporting documentation. Business records regarding actions taken in response to any violations discovered must also be maintained for five years.

Product transfer documents for additives. ( See 40 CFR § 80.591.) Product transfer documents for diesel additives must indicate that the additive does not exceed 15 ppm sulfur or, in the alternative, that the additive does exceed 15 ppm sulfur and care must be taken to blend it properly in order to ensure that the blended final product is compliant with the 15 ppm sulfur standard.

Quality assurance test results for batches of diesel fuel. ( See 40 CFR § 80.592.) Refiners and importers are required to test each batch of diesel for its sulfur content. Quality assurance 10 testing is voluntary, although nearly all refiners and importers would engage in such testing in order to establish an affirmative defense under an enforcement scenario. For distributors quality assurance testing is voluntary. Records retained would have to indicate the location, date, time and storage tank, truck or batch sampled, the name and title of the person who sampled the tank or truck, and the results of any testing. For any product that was non compliant as a result of quality assurance testing, records would have to be made and kept to indicate the actions the party has taken, if any, to identify the cause of the noncompliance and to prevent future instances of noncompliance. Any generated records related to quality assurance testing would have to be retained for five years.

All records, including electronic records and the various types of specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements ( discussed below), must be made available to EPA upon request.

b. Applications and baselines for small refiners. ( See 40 CFR § § 80.550  80.80.555.)

Small refiner applications must include information about the company, its corporate structure and its refining capacity that will permit EPA to assess whether the refiner is, in fact, " small" for purposes of the program. All applications must be in writing and signed and certified by a responsible corporate officer.

The application must indicate whether the refiner is seeking to continue the sale of 500 ppm nonroad, locomotive, and marine diesel fuel and/ or to generate early compliance credits, or if the refiner is seeking an extension of its small refiner gasoline sulfur standard under the gasoline sulfur regulations. ( See 40 CFR § § 80.240, 80.552( d) and 80.553.)

Small refiners must apply for a small refiner baseline. ( See 40 CFR § 80.533.) A separate volume baseline must be submitted for each refinery for which small refiner status is sought. The baseline must be accompanied by a written signature and certification by a responsible corporate officer.

Small refiners must comply with the same recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including pre compliance and annual reports, required of all refiners.

c. Applications by Refiners Seeking to Be Granted Temporary Relief for General Hardship. ( See 40 CFR § 80.560.)

A refiner may petition for temporary relief from some or all of the diesel requirements if the refiner can demonstrate that 11 unusual circumstances exist that impose extreme hardship and prevent the refiner from being able to comply with applicable requirements. The items that must be included in the petition are laid out in 40 CFR § 80.560 and include description of a plan demonstrating how the refiner plans to comply with the diesel rule's requirements as soon as possible, information about the refiner's efforts to obtain capital for refinery improvements or to obtain credits, information about the bond rating of the entity that owns the refinery, and similar items that support the application. The refiner must also include a compliance plan that will demonstrate how the refiner will engage in a quality assurance testing program, engage in period sampling and testing at its own facilities and at downstream locations, inspect retail and wholesale purchaser consumer facilities it supplies to ensure proper segregation and labeling of its product, etc. All applications must be accompanied by a signed, certification letter from a responsible corporate officer.

d. Applications by Refiners Seeking to be Granted Relief under Extreme Circumstances. ( See 40 CFR § 80.561.)

In appropriate extreme, unusual, and unforseen circumstances, clearly outside the control of the refiner or importer and which could not have been avoided by exercising due diligence, EPA may permit distribution of diesel fuel that does not meet regulatory requirements if certain conditions are met ( e. g. it must be in the public interest to do so, the refiner must make up any air quality detriment, the refiner must pay the U. S. Treasury an amount equal to the economic benefit of the nonconformity minus the amount paid making up any air quality detriment, etc.). Due to the extreme nature of this relief, no exact format is prescribed by the regulations for application. However, in order for the Agency to make a decision as to whether to grant such relief, it is necessary for the party to describe the circumstances in sufficient detail.

e. Applications for Research and Development Exemptions. ( See 40 CFR § 80.607.)

Any person may receive an exemption from the regulations for diesel fuel used for research, development, or testing purposes. The regulations specify the type of information a party would submit in order to demonstrate that there is a legitimate basis for granting an exemption. Such information includes a concise statement of the purpose and scope of the program and an explanation as to why an exemption is needed. Information about the duration of the program, the maximum number of vehicles or engines involved, and the quantity of diesel fuel is to be provided to the Agency. In addition, the party must provide information about the site where research is to be conducted and 12 the manner in which records will be kept. Contact information must be provided.

f. Recordkeeping and reporting that is specific to foreign refiners subject to a temporary compliance option or a hardship provisions ( See 40 CFR § 80.620.)

Generally, the requirements of the diesel program are to be met by the importer ( who imports foreign refiner diesel) unless a foreign refinery has applied for and received EPA approval to produce nonroad, locomotive, and marine diesel fuel under the temporary compliance option or one of the hardship provisions. Foreign refiners may seek to be included under the small refiner hardship provisions ( see 40 CFR § § 80.554), the temporary relief provisions of 40 CFR § 80.560 or the extreme unforeseen circumstances provisions of 40 CFR § 80.561. As with other refiners, application must be made in writing to EPA, and signed and certified by a responsible corporate officer. The writing must be in English or an English translation must be provided.

Because of the difficulties of enforcing requirements in foreign countries, there is an attest engagement requirement associated with foreign refiner flexibility. This must be performed on a yearly basis and must be submitted on May 30th for the prior calendar year. An attest engagement is similar to a financial audit and is to be conducted by a party who is independent of the foreign refiner and who is either a licensed CPA or a person approved in advance by EPA who is capable of carrying out those duties.

g. Recordkeeping and reporting that is specific to the generation and use of credits. ( See 40 CFR § § 80.535 and 80.536.)

Details are given in the section given above.

4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 4( a) Agency Activities The following are required:

Prepare necessary guidance documents, including a Question and Answer ( Q& A) document

Convey the requirements in a manner that is understandable. Emphasize the benefits of submitting data electronically. 13

Respond to inquiries.

Provide access to the regulations, guidance documents, and forms.

Review the submitted information prior to data entry for compliance with submission requirements.

Process baseline applications and applications for hardships.

Contact the respondent when the information has not been submitted properly and provide guidance on correction of the problem.

Maintain and refine hardware and software systems for handling confidential data via hard copy and electronically.

Administer a contract for data entry.

Input information into databases and store the information.

Perform data analysis and identify violations. 1. 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management The information collection has been developed by EPA offices that have planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance the utility of the information for the Agency and the public. The information collection, to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, Agency efficiency, and responsiveness to the public.

EPA will accept common electronic formats for most of the reporting requirements  for example, annual reports may be submitted in any of several commercial spreadsheet formats or, more simply, as comma delimited text files. For applications for small refiner status, research and development exemptions, and similar documents, any format may be used that contains the necessary information. All submissions must be signed and certified by a responsible corporate officer.

The product transfer document information can be included on standard transfer documentation customarily used in the ordinary 14 course of business. EPA allows the information to be encoded by upstream parties ( refiners, importers, terminals) to facilitate reporting and save space.

The information is carefully reviewed for compliance with the requirements. Most of the information submitted to the Agency is confidential. It is stored in a secure area and on secure databases.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The information collection reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on respondents, including small entities. Small refiners and other parties are required to supply information in order to confirm their status and the applicability of appropriate flexibility provisions to them. However, most of these reporting requirements are included in the one time submission of the registration, application, and baseline. Other small businesses which are covered, including diesel distributors, retailers, and wholesale purchaser consumers, must maintain product transfer documents, which is already done in the ordinary course of business. Diesel Fuel distributors must also report their receipts and transfers of designated fuels in order to enable the designate and track provisions to be utilized for compliance assurance. It should be stated, however, that this information is already collected in the course of normal business.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) and( b) Estimating Respondent Burdens and Costs The reporting burdens associated with this program are presented in three tables below as follows: The first table ( INITIAL BURDEN) includes one time burdens associated with the start of the program, that is a one time reporting burden associated with registration ( for those parties who are not already registered); a one time reporting burden associated with each application under various available compliance options, including the small refiner, GPA, and temporary hardship provisions and, the cost associated with development of database and software programming needs for diesel reporting and credit tracking.

The annual cost associated with the periodic reporting by refiners and importers, as well as pipeline and terminal operators covering the first three years of the program implementation is presented in the second table ( ANNUAL BURDEN: Period June 2007 to May 2010). It includes the costs for annual and quarterly reporting, exemption applications and Q& A by 15 refiners and importers. In the third table ( ANNUAL BURDEN: Period June 2010 and beyond) the annual costs are significantly lower, as quarterly and precompliance reports are eliminated and fewer pipeline and terminal operators will need to submit reports.

Labor rates on a per hour basis, are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site at http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t12. htm ( accessed November 24, 2000). Technical labor is $ 42.89/ hr, managerial labor is $ 65.19/ hr, clerical labor is $ 27.11/ hr. Labor rates were multiplied by 1.5 to account for fringe benefits and other overhead expenses.

The labor mix for the activities above will be about the same for each. It is assumed that for each hour of activity the mix will be about 0.1 hour managerial, 0.7 hour technical, and 0.2 hour clerical. This gives an average labor cost of about $ 70 per hour, which will be used in this ICR. The annual burden estimates given below are based upon the likely respondents and estimated number of reports, industry contact, and our knowledge of likely industry activity over the next three years. They are presented in the same order as above, but with abbreviated titles. The estimated respondent population by respondent is noted on the table below.

ANNUAL ESTIMATED REPORTING BURDENS For most activities the estimate is one hour per report. However, some reports and some applications may require considerably more time, as estimated below. We expect that all or nearly all annual reports and baselines applications will be submitted electronically. 1 Many parties have already registered under other fuels program and will not have to re register. We are assuming a total of 150 refineries and importers, and 1,000 pipelines and terminals total for purposes of these burden tables.

16 Initial Burden Table by Collection Activity Collection Activity # of Respondents # of Reports per Respondent Total # of Reports Hours per Report Total Hours Total Labor Cost. in $

Refiner and Importer Registration1 20 1 20 1 20 $ 1,500 Pipeline and Terminal Operators' Registration 1,000 1 1,000 1 1,000 $ 75,000 Application for Small Refiner Status 25 1 25 20 500 $ 37,500 Temporary Hardship Relief Application 5 1 5 20 100 $ 7,500 Refiners and Importers database and software programming needs for diesel reporting and credit tracking 150 1 150 150 22,500 $ 1,687,500 Pipeline and Terminal Operators database and software needs for diesel reporting and credit tracking 1,000 1 1,000 50 50,000 $ 3,750,000 Refiners' and Importers'

Creation of new product codes for Product Transfer Documents 150 1 150 15 2,250 $ 168,750 Total 2,350 76,370 $ 5,727,750 17 Annual Burden Table by Collection Activity Period: June 2007 to May 2010 Collection Activity Number of Respondents Number of Reports per Respondent Total Number of Reports Hours per Report Total Hours Total Labor Cost in $

Application for Relief Under Extreme Circumstances 2 1 2 40 80 6,000 R& D Exemption Application 8 1 8 1 8 600 Refiners' and Importers Precompliance Reports 150 1 150 20 3,000 225,000 Refiners and Importers Annual Reports 150 1 150 40 6,000 450,000 Refiners and Importers Quarterly Reports 150 4 600 20 12,000 900,000 Pipeline and Terminal Operators' Annual Reports 1,000 1 1,000 40 40,000 3,000,000 Pipeline and Terminal Operators Quarterly Reports 1,000 4 4,000 30 120,000 9,000,000 Q& A by Refiners and Importers 150 100 15,000 1 15,000 1,125,000 Attest engagement for foreign refiners 5 1 5 40 200 15,000 Total 2615 20,915 196,288 14,721,600 18 Annual Burden Table by Collection Activity Period: June 2010 and beyond Collection Activity Number of Respondents Number of Reports per Respondent Total Number of Reports Hours per Report Total Hours Total Labor Cost in $

Application for Relief Under Extreme Circumstances 2 1 2 40 80 6,000 R& D Exemption Application 8 1 8 1 8 600 Refiners and Importers Annual Reports 150 1 150 40 6,000 450,000 Pipeline and Terminal Operators' Annual Reports 100 1 100 40 4,000 300,000 Q& A by Refiners and Importers 150 100 15,000 1 15,000 1,125,000 Attest engagement for foreign refiners 5 1 5 40 200 15,000 Total 15,265 25,288 $ 1,896,800 19 THE RESULTS BY TABLE ARE AS FOLLOWS: INITIAL BURDEN TOTAL NO. OF REPORTS: 2, 350 TOTAL BURDEN HOURS: 76,370 TOTAL LABOR COSTS: $ 5,727,750 ANNUAL BURDEN Period May 2004 to May 2007 TOTAL BURDEN HOURS for 1st YEAR: 0 TOTAL BURDEN HOURS for 2nd YEAR: 76,370 TOTAL BURDEN HOURS for 3rd YEAR: 196,288 AVERAGE OVER 3 YEAR PERIOD: 90,886 ANNUAL BURDEN Period June 2007 to May 2010 TOTAL NO. OF REPORTS: 20,915 TOTAL BURDEN HOURS: 196,288 TOTAL LABOR COSTS: $ 14,721,600 TOTAL O& M AND CAPITAL COSTS: 3,600,000 ( 1/ 2 O& M and 1/ 2 CAPITAL) TOTAL PURCHASED SERVICES COSTS: 50,000 TOTAL OF ALL COSTS = $ 18,371,600 ANNUAL BURDEN Period June 2010 and Beyond TOTAL NO. OF REPORTS: 15,265 TOTAL BURDEN HOURS: 25,288 TOTAL LABOR COSTS: $ 1,896,600 TOTAL O& M AND CAPITAL COSTS: 3,600,000 ( 1/ 2 O& M and 1/ 2 CAPITAL) TOTAL PURCHASED SERVICES COSTS: 50,000 TOTAL OF ALL COSTS = 5,546,600 The above cost estimate represents the maximum cost associated with the information collection for the nonroad diesel rule. It is highly probable that refiners, importers, pipeline and terminal operators will incorporate the data submission requirements for the nonroad diesel with other established submission forms such as the highway diesel collection. As a result the overall cost could be reduced significantly.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The Agency activities listed in 5( a) are part of an overall gasoline and diesel reporting system ( including reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, and diesel). This system is handled by a contractor for $ 218,000 per year, a GS 13 computer specialist for $ 120,000 per year ( including overhead), a GS 13 program analyst for $ 120,000 per year, and the equivalent of a GS 14 program manager for $ 150,000 per year. Annual cost for lease and security of the secure area where the confidential data are stored and analyzed is estimated at $ 30,000. Annual computer cost is estimated at $ 30,000. Thus, the annual estimated cost to the government is $ 668,000. The total annual hours for 20 government employees are 3 full time equivalents ( FTE) x 2080 hours/ FTE = 6,240 hours.

6( d) and ( e) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs, and Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs This was incorporated into 6( a) and ( b).

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The reporting burden related to diesel fuel has changed as a result of the final rule establishing the low sulfur nonroad equipment diesel fuel requirements.

6( g) Burden Statement The public reporting burden for this Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) collection of information is estimated to average one hour per response. This includes time for reviewing instructions and regulations, searching company records, gathering the needed data, and completing, reviewing, copying, and transmitting the collection of information.

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 or requirements; train personnel to be able to response to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

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 No. OAR 2003 0012, which is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is 21 open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room and the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1744. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. EDOCKET is available for submitting or viewing public comments, accessing the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and accessing those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. 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 Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OAR 2003 0012) and OMB control number ( 2060 0308) in any correspondence.