[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 86 (Monday, May 4, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26418-26419]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08905]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0103; FRL-10008-44--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; KY; Jefferson County Existing and New
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky
(Commonwealth), through the Energy and Environment Cabinet (Cabinet) on
September 5, 2019. The revisions were submitted by the Cabinet on
behalf of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District and makes
a singular change to two regulations for clarity purposes regarding the
applicability of exempt surface coating standards for existing and new
miscellaneous metal parts and products operations. EPA is proposing to
approve the changes as they are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 3, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2020-0103 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah LaRocca, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-8994. Ms. LaRocca can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA is proposing to approve a change to Regulation 6.31, Standard
of Performance for Existing Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Surface Coating Operations, and Regulation 7.59, Standard of
Performance for New Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface
Coating Operations, of the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky
SIP, submitted by the Commonwealth on September 5, 2019. The SIP
revisions clarify the applicability of the surface coating standard
exemptions as it pertains to Section 3 of Regulations 6.31 and 7.59.
The SIP revisions ensure consistency across the regulations and updates
the current SIP-approved version of Regulation 6.31 (Version 6) and
Regulation 7.59 (Version 6) to Version 7 of each.
    EPA has found that surface coatings of miscellaneous metal parts
and products operations emit hazardous air pollutants (HAP). See 69 FR
129 (January 2, 2004). Regulation of these sources protects air quality
and promotes public health by reducing HAP emissions into the
environment. The organic HAP emitted by surface coatings and
miscellaneous metal parts and products operations are volatile organic
compounds (VOC), as defined by 40 CFR 51.100(s).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Specifically, the organic HAP emitted by these operations
include xylenes, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), phenol,
cresols/cresylic acid, glycol ethers (including ethylene glycol
monobutyl ether (EGBE)), styrene, methyl isobutyl ketone MIBK), and
ethyl benzene. See 69 FR 129. The aforementioned compounds are
identified as VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, occurs when VOC and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere. Because of
the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA limits the VOC and NOx
emissions that can be released into the atmosphere. VOC are compounds
of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and carbonates,
and ammonium carbonate, which participate in atmospheric photochemical
reactions, including in the formation of ozone. The compounds of carbon
(or organic compounds) have different levels of photochemical
reactivity; therefore, they do not form ozone to the same extent.

II. EPA's Analysis of the Submittal

    Jefferson County Air Quality Regulations 6.31 and 7.59 address VOC
emitted by miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating
operations at existing and new facilities, respectively. In this
proposed action, EPA is proposing to approve a change to these two
regulations. In Paragraph 5.1 of Section 5, Exemptions, of both
regulations, clarifying text is being added to ensure consistency with
Paragraph 5.2. In the SIP-approved versions of these regulations,
Paragraph 5.1 lists the types of surface coatings that are ``exempt
from this regulation'' and Paragraph 5.2 exempts any affected facility
from Section 3 (Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds) if the total
VOC emissions \2\ from all affected facilities subject to this
regulation are less than or equal to five tons per year. The SIP
revisions create consistency between Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 by
clarifying that the exemption in Paragraph 5.1 applies only to Section
3 (i.e., the phrase ``exempt from this regulation'' is replaced with
``exempt

from the standards in Section 3 of this regulation''). These revisions
do not change how the regulation operates and solely serves as an
update to clarify that the exemption only applies to emissions
standards in each regulation, as recordkeeping requirements are still
explicitly required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Potential emissions prior to any add-on controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District Regulation
6.31, Standard of Performance for Existing Miscellaneous Metal Parts
and Products Surface Coating Operations, Version 7, and Regulation
7.59, Standard of Performance for New Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products Surface Coating Operations, Version 7, state effective June
19, 2019. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4
office (please contact the person identified in the ``For Further
Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the change to Regulation 6.31, Standard
of Performance for Existing Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Surface Coating Operations, and Regulation 7.59, Standard of
Performance for New Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface
Coating Operations, of the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP
as submitted on September 5, 2019. This change clarifies the existing
regulations' applicability and is consistent with the CAA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
proposes to approve 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 1955 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in the
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
national Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The SIP is not
approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or any other area
where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rules do not have
tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-08905 Filed 5-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 186 (Monday, September 26, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59268-59269]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24694]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 65

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002]

Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) are
finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be
used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and
their contents.

DATES: The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the
following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
effect for the listed communities prior to this date.

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs
for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in
newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since
that publication. The Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administrator has resolved any appeals resulting from this
notification.
    The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice.
However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive
Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are
available for inspection.
    The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management
criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities.
    These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these
elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings. The
changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

    Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:

PART 65--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p.376.

Sec.  65.4  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  65.4 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Date and name of
         State and county           Location and case No.     newspaper where     Chief executive officer    Effective date of modification   Community
                                                           notice was published         of community                                             No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama: Tuscaloosa, (FEMA Docket   City of Tuscaloosa     April 4, 2011; April  The Honorable Walter       April 29, 2011.................       010203
 No.: B-1199).                       (10-04-6941P).         11, 2011; The         Maddox, Mayor, City of
                                                            Tuscaloosa News.      Tuscaloosa, 2201
                                                                                University Boulevard,
                                                                                Tuscaloosa, AL 35401.
Colorado: Arapahoe, (FEMA Docket    City of Aurora (10-08- March 17, 2011;       The Honorable Ed Tauer,    March 10, 2011.................       080002
 No.: B-1199).                       0937P).                March 24, 2011; The   Mayor, City of Aurora,
                                                            Aurora Sentinel.      15151 East Alameda
                                                                                Parkway, Aurora, CO
                                                                                80012.
North Carolina:
    Alamance, (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Unincorporated areas   October 27, 2010;     Mr. Craig F. Honeycutt,    March 3, 2011..................       370001
     1172).                          of Alamance County     November 3, 2010;     Alamance County Manager,
                                     (10-04-6308P).         The Times-News.       124 West Elm Street,
                                                                                Graham, NC 27253.
    Ashe, (FEMA Docket No.: B-      Unincorporated areas   February 18, 2011;    Mr. Dan McMillan, Ashe     June 27, 2011..................       370007
     1195).                          of Ashe County (10-    February 25, 2011;    County Manager, 150
                                     04-3410P).             The Jefferson Post.   Government Circle, Suite
                                                                                2500, Jefferson, NC
                                                                                28640.

    Caldwell, (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Unincorporated areas   January 20, 2011;     Mr. Stan Kiser, Caldwell   May 27, 2011...................       370039
     1199).                          of Caldwell County     January 27, 2011;     County Manager, P.O. Box
                                     (10-04-7739P).         The Lenoir News-      2200, 905 West Avenue
                                                            Topic.                Northwest, Lenoir, NC
                                                                                28645.
    Columbus, (FEMA Docket No.: B-  City of Whiteville     February 24, 2011;    The Honorable Terry Mann,  February 17, 2011..............       370071
     1195).                          (10-04-6817P).         March 3, 2011; The    Mayor, City of
                                                            News Reporter.        Whiteville, 317 South
                                                                                Madison Street,
                                                                                Whiteville, NC 28472.
    Columbus, (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Unincorporated areas   February 24, 2011;    The Honorable Giles Byrd,  February 17, 2011..............       370305
     1195).                          of Columbus County     March 3, 2011; The    Chairman, Columbus
                                     (10-04-6817P).         News Reporter.        County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, 111
                                                                                Washington Street,
                                                                                Whiteville, NC 28472.
    Rutherford, (FEMA Docket No.:   Village of Chimney     February 18, 2011;    The Honorable Barbara      February 11, 2011..............       370487
     B-1195).                        Rock (10-04-3339P).    February 25, 2011;    Meliski, Mayor, Village
                                                            The Daily Courier.    of Chimney Rock, P.O.
                                                                                Box 300, Chimney Rock,
                                                                                NC 28720.
    Wake, (FEMA Docket No.: B-      City of Raleigh (10-   February 15, 2011;    The Honorable Charles      June 22, 2011..................       370243
     1195).                          04-3939P).             February 22, 2011;    Meeker, Mayor, City of
                                                            The News & Observer.  Raleigh, P.O. Box 590,
                                                                                222 West Hargett Street,
                                                                                Raleigh, NC 27602.
Texas: Tarrant, (FEMA Docket No.:   City of Benbrook (09-  April 9, 2010; April  Mr. Andy Wayman, Benbrook  April 1, 2010..................       480586
 B-1129).                            06-3139P).             16, 2010; The Star-   City Manager, 911
                                                            Telegram.             Winscott Road, Benbrook,
                                                                                TX 76126.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: September 9, 2011.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-24694 Filed 9-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 70 and 71 [ OAR 2003 0180; FRL______]

[ RIN 2060 AK29]

Request for Comment on Potentially Inadequate Monitoring in Clean Air Act Applicable Requirements and on Methods to Improve Such Monitoring AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Today's advance notice of proposed rulemaking ( ANPR) asks for public comment to help us identify monitoring in applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act ( Act) that is potentially inadequate with respect to the statutory monitoring requirements for operating permits issued under title V of the Act. Today's ANPR also asks for public comment on ways to improve such monitoring. The EPA believes that it will be more effective, more equitable, and more efficient to improve inadequate monitoring in applicable requirements, where necessary, through rulemakings to revise the applicable requirements themselves or through other programmatic approaches, rather than by addressing inadequate monitoring on a case by case basis in the issuance and renewal of title V operating permits. To inform EPA's consideration of improvements to existing monitoring, today's ANPR seeks stakeholder input to identify inadequate monitoring in certain Federal standards and State implementation plan ( SIP) rules and to suggest specific ways to improve such monitoring. Comments received in response to 2 today's ANPR will enable EPA to better evaluate where inadequate monitoring exists and to determine how to craft any necessary improvements.

DATES: Comments. We must receive written comments on or before [ insert date 60 days following publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0180, by one of the following methods:

° Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www. regulations. gov. Follow the on line instructions for submitting comments.

° Agency Website: http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.

Follow the on line instructions for submitting comments.

° E mail: Send electronic mail ( e mail) to EPA Docket Center at a and r docket@ epamail. epa. gov.

° Fax: Send faxes to EPA Docket Center at ( 202) 566 1741.

° Air and Radiation Docket, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code:

6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.

° Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC, 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0180. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without 3 change and may be made available online at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations. gov, or e mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations. gov websites are " anonymous access" systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e mail comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations. gov, your e mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET on line or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 ( 67 FR 38102).

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i. e., 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 4 available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/ DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Herring, Information Transfer and Program Implementation Division, Office and Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C304 04, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: ( 919) 541 3195; fax number: ( 919) 541 5509; and email address: herring. jeff@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include facilities currently required to obtain title V permits under State, local, tribal, or Federal operating permits programs, and State, local, and tribal governments that issue such permits pursuant to EPA approved programs.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through EDOCKET,

regulations. gov or e mail. Instead, mail CBI to the following address:

Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer ( C404 02), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention E Docket ID No. 5 OAR 2003 0180. Alternatively, such information may be hand delivered to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer ( C404 02), U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Attention E Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0180. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to Mr. Morales, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted to EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit a CD ROM or disc that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR), part 2.

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

° Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information ( subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

° Follow directions  The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number. 6 ° Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

° Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/ or data that you used.

° If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

° Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

° Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

° Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

C. Where Can I Obtain Additional Information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's notice is also available on the World Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN).

Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of today's notice will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed,

call the TTN HELP line at ( 919) 541 5384.

D. How Is This Preamble Organized?

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 7 B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI 2. Tips for Preparing your Comments C. Where Can I Obtain Additional Information?

D. How Is This Preamble Organized?

II. Background III. What Is the Purpose of Today's ANPR?

IV. What Are We Specifically Seeking Comment On?

V. What Additional Steps Are Expected After EPA Reviews the Comments Received?

II. Background Two provisions of EPA's State and Federal operating permits program regulations require that title V permits contain monitoring requirements. The " periodic monitoring"

rules, 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B) and 71.6( a)( 3)( i)( B), require that:

[ w] here the applicable requirement does not require periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring ( which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring), [ each title V permit must contain] periodic monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that are representative of the source's compliance with the permit, as reported pursuant to [ § § 70.6( a)( 3)( iii) or 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)]. Such monitoring requirements shall assure use of terms, test methods, units, averaging periods, and other statistical conventions consistent with the applicable requirement. Recordkeeping provisions may be sufficient to meet the requirements of [ § § 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B) and 71.6( a)( 3)( i)( B)].

The so called " umbrella monitoring" rules, § § 70.6( c)( 1) and 71.6( c)( 1), require that each title V permit contain, "[ c] onsistent with paragraph ( a)( 3) of this section, compliance 8 certification, testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit."

In a final rule entitled " Revisions to Clarify the Scope of Certain Monitoring Requirements for Federal and State Operating Permits Programs" ( 69 FR 3202, January 22, 2004), EPA announced a four step strategy for improving existing monitoring where necessary through rulemaking, while reducing resource intensive, case by case monitoring reviews and so called " gap filling" in title V operating permits. Today's ANPR is part of that strategy.

In the first step, the umbrella monitoring rule ( 69 FR 3202, January 22, 2004), EPA decided not to adopt proposed revisions to the regulatory text of § § 70.6( c)( 1) and 71.6( c)( 1) ( 67 FR 58561, September 17, 2002) and instead ratified the regulatory text of those rules without making any changes. The EPA also announced that it has determined that the correct interpretation of these provisions is that they do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring independent of any review and enhancement as may be required under § § 70.6( a)( 3) and 71.6( a)( 3). The EPA explained that § § 70.6( c)( 1) and 71.6( c)( 1) require that title V permits contain: ( 1) Monitoring required by " applicable requirements" under the Act, as that term is defined in 40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2; and ( 2) such monitoring as may be required under § § 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B) and 71.6( a)( 3)( i)( B). See Appalachian Power Co. v.

EPA, 208 F. 3d 1015 ( D. C. Cir. 2000). The term " applicable requirements" includes, but is not limited to: monitoring required under the compliance assurance monitoring ( CAM)

rule, 40 CFR part 64, where it applies; monitoring required under Federal rules such as new 9 source performance standards ( NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) in 40 CFR part 61, maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) standards in 40 CFR part 63, the acid rain program rules in 40 CFR parts 72 through 75; and monitoring required in SIP, tribal implementation plan and Federal implementation plan rules. Thus, for monitoring, EPA explained, § § 70.6( c)( 1)

and 71.6( c)( 1) constitute " umbrella provisions" that direct permitting authorities to include monitoring required under existing statutory or regulatory authorities in title V permits.

Based on EPA's interpretation of the Act, the plain language and structure of § § 70.6( c)( 1)

and 71.6( c)( 1), and the policy reasons described in the preamble to the umbrella monitoring rule ( see 69 FR at 3204), EPA concluded that § § 70.6( c)( 1) and 71.6( c)( 1) do not require or authorize a new and independent type of monitoring in permits beyond what is required by section § § 70.6( c)( 3)( i) and 71.6( a)( 3)( i).

In the umbrella monitoring rule, EPA also announced plans to address monitoring in three related rulemaking actions. First, EPA announced plans to encourage States to improve potentially inadequate monitoring in certain SIP rules. The EPA intends to address such monitoring in guidance to be developed in connection with an upcoming rulemaking concerning the implementation of the national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS) for fine particulate matter ( particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers, or PM 2.5), also referred to as the proposed PM 2.5 implementation rule. The primary purpose of the proposed PM 2.5 implementation rule will be to describe the requirements that States and Tribes have to meet in order to implement the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Because opacity and particulate monitoring are related to 10 compliance with particulate matter standards, one part of this proposal will address EPA's plans to develop separate guidance on how States can reduce PM 2.5 emissions by improving source monitoring related to particulate matter emission limits. This may include increasing the frequency of existing opacity monitoring, adding monitoring for parameters of a control device, installing continuous particulate emissions monitoring, or a combination of the above. See 69 FR at 3204.

In addition, EPA announced plans to publish a separate proposed rule to address what monitoring constitutes " periodic" monitoring under § § 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B) and 71.6( a)( 3)( i)( B) and what types of monitoring should be created under § § 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B)

and 71.6( a)( 3)( i)( B). Finally, EPA announced plans for today's ANPR. See 69 FR at 3204 3205. Together with the umbrella monitoring rule, these three related rulemaking actions comprise EPA's four step strategy for improving existing monitoring where necessary on a programmatic basis.

In the umbrella monitoring rule, EPA stated that the strategy will ensure that the Act's monitoring requirements will be met. See 69 FR at 3207. For instance, EPA explained that " section 504( c)' s command that each title V permit ` set forth . . . monitoring . . . to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions' will be satisfied through the combination of EPA and, as necessary, State rulemakings to address monitoring, and the addition to permits of such monitoring as may be required under § § 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B) and 71.6( a)( 3)( i)( B). See 42 USC § 7661c( c)." Id. The EPA also explained that "[ s] atisfying the specific monitoring requirements of section 504( c) will assure that the more general requirements of section 504( a) are satisfied as to monitoring." See 42 USC § 7661c( a) 11 (" Each [ title V] permit . . . shall include . . . conditions as are necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of this chapter, including the requirements of the applicable implementation plan"). Id.

III. What Is the Purpose of Today's ANPR?

The purpose of today's ANPR is to request public comments to identify potentially inadequate monitoring contained in certain applicable requirements and on ways to improve such monitoring. The EPA is especially interested in comments on existing monitoring requirements in NSPS under 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP under 40 CFR part 61. To better explain what we are seeking, we present a table in section IV below in which we identify certain patterns of potentially inadequate monitoring, along with examples of rules that may containing such monitoring. We believe this table is a good starting point to frame public comments on potential monitoring inadequacies in Federal standards. Since this table may not be complete, we are not limiting comment to the patterns of potential inadequacies or the standards listed in the table. We do not believe that standards promulgated after the 1990 Amendments to the Act, for example, many NESHAP standards under part 63, and acid rain requirements, are as likely to contain inadequate monitoring. This is so because such rules are already required to meet Act requirements for monitoring that were enacted in 1990. We are also not seeking comment on the CAM rule for similar reasons. Specifically, we believe the CAM rule is currently structured such that, when it applies, it already requires adequate monitoring in permits. ( More on how this ANPR relates to the CAM rule in the next paragraph.) In addition, although we believe SIPs are likely to contain some of the potential monitoring inadequacies listed in the 12 table below, the table does not identify specific SIP rules where such inadequacies may exist. However, as explained below, EPA is asking for comment in this ANPR to identify specific SIP rules likely to contain inadequate monitoring.

An important purpose of this notice is to solicit comments that could inform rulemaking actions that potentially would reduce the resource burdens associated with case by case review under the periodic monitoring and CAM rules. This may occur to the extent that any such rulemaking results in less need to conduct such review and enhancement and, in some cases, fewer burdens when such review and enhancement are conducted. Because periodic monitoring rules apply when existing monitoring is not " periodic" and our strategy for improving existing monitoring through rulemaking may result in more existing monitoring that is " periodic," our strategy for improving monitoring will likely result in fewer instances where periodic monitoring rules apply. Also, for two reasons, our strategy for improving monitoring through rulemaking may result in less need for case by case review and enhancement under the CAM rule. First, as provided in § 64.2( b)( 1)( i), any rulemakings to revise emission limitations and standards established pursuant to section 111 or 112 of the Act will result in exemptions from CAM for those emission limitations and standards. The CAM rule provides for this because any such rulemakings must satisfy certain Act requirements for monitoring, and thus, EPA believes further enhancements to monitoring through CAM would be unnecessary. Second, § 64.4( b)( 1) allows States to provide SIP rules designed to satisfy certain CAM requirments ( the requirements to document the appropriateness of monitoring within the CAM plan) for particular types of emission units. To the extent that our strategy for improving monitoring 13 through rulemaking results in SIP rules designed for this purpose, it follows that this strategy may potentially reduce some of the burdens associated with implementation of the CAM rule.

Aside from monitoring in applicable requirements that is not " periodic," there may be monitoring in applicable requirements that is " inadequate" because it is outdated. Many NSPS and NESHAP standards were promulgated two decades ago or more, and many have not been revised since that time. Air pollution monitoring technologies have advanced significantly since many of these standards were promulgated. For example,

there is widespread availability and utility of programmable microprocessors for collecting,

processing, and storing data in digital formats ( e. g., digital data loggers and similar devices). Thus, we ask for comments to identify standards where upgrades to reflect such new technologies or other developments since the standards were promulgated are appropriate.

IV. What Are We Specifically Seeking Comment On?

We have developed a table which shows recurring patterns of monitoring in NSPS and NESHAP standards that we believe warrant scrutiny with respect to the Act's requirements for " enhanced monitoring" at major sources and for monitoring to assure compliance with title V permit terms and conditions. See 42 USC § § 7414( a)( 3),

7661c( a), 7661c( c). The patterns are as follows: 14 Pattern Subparts Affected 1. Limits on both particulate matter ( PM) mass and opacity are specified, but standard requires monitoring [ such as continuous opacity monitors ( COMs)] only of opacity. ( In other words, no monitoring of PM mass limits is specified.) NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart D  Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators,

Subpart Da  Electric Utility Steam Generating Units,

Subpart Db  Industrial Commercial Institutional Steam Generating Units,

Subpart Dc  Small Industrial Commercial Institutional Steam Generating Units,

Subpart Ea  Municipal Waste Combusters,

Subpart J  Petroleum Refineries,

Subpart Na  Secondary Emissions From Basic Oxygen Process Steelmaking Facilities,

Subpart P  Primary Copper Smelters,

Subpart Q  Primary Zinc Smelters,

Subpart R  Primary Lead Smelters,

Subpart Z  Ferroalloy Production Facilities,

Subpart AA  Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces, and Subpart AAa  Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon Oxygen Decarburization; and NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart N  Inorganic Arsenic from Glass Manufacturing Plants. 15 2. No monitoring of any kind is required. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart E  Incinerators,

Subpart I  Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities,

Subpart L  Secondary Lead Smelters,

Subpart M  Secondary Brass and Bronze Production,

Subpart K  Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids   Where vapor recovery system used,

Subpart Ka,  Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids   Where vapor recovery system used,

Subpart Kb  Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels   Where vapor recovery system used,

Subpart BB  Kraft Pulp Mills   For PM and/ or opacity, and Subpart DD   Grain Elevators; and NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart B   Radon from Underground Uranium Mines   Where subject to emissions limit instead of ambient limit,

Subpart Q   Radon from Department of Energy Facilities,

Subpart V   Volatile HAP Equipment Leaks   For compressors at unmanned sites, and Subpart VV   Oil Water Separators and Organic Water Separators   For compressors at unmanned sites. 16 3. Monitoring method is specified, but no monitoring frequency is specified, or monitoring is required only when directed by permitting authority. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart JJJ  Petroleum Dry Cleaners   For leak detection and repair, and Subpart QQQ  Volatile Organic Compounds ( VOC) From Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems.

4. Monitoring is specified for certain units, but no monitoring is required of other units covered by the same standard. NSPS, 40 Part 60 Subparts Y  Coal Preparation Plants, and Subpart CC  Glass Manufacturing Plants. 17 5. Monitoring is specified for certain control devices ( usually where monitoring of pressure drop is required), but no monitoring is specified for other control devices; or if there is a wet scrubber, no pressure drop range is specified. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart N  Primary Emissions from Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces,

Subpart O  Sewage Treatment Plants,

Subpart T  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants,

Subpart U  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Superphosphoric Acid Plants,

Subpart V  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Diammonium Phosphate Plants,

Subpart W  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple Superphosphate Plants,

Subpart X  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Granular Triple Superphosphate Storage Facilities,

Subpart HH  Lime Manufacturing Plants,

Subpart KK  Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants,

Subpart LL  Metallic Mineral Processing Plants,

Subpart NN  Phosphate Rock Plants,

Subpart PP  Ammonium Sulfate, Manufacture, and Subpart QQ  Graphic Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure Printing.

6. Infrequent periodic testing required ( once a month or once a year), but no monitoring of the control device is specified between required tests. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart S  Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants. 18 7. Parameters required to be monitored may be insufficient to assure proper operation of control device. Examples are: monitoring pressure drop across baghouse, rather than use of bag leak detection, and monitoring pressure drop on a wet scrubber, but not also monitoring liquid flow rate. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart UU  Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacture, and Subpart XX  Bulk Gasoline Terminals; and NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart M   Asbestos   Where visible emissions monitoring instead of bag leak detectors for fabric filters,

Subparts N   Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants,

Subpart O   Inorganic Arsenic from Primary Copper Smelters, and Subpart P   Inorganic Arsenic from Arsenic Trioxide and Metallic Arsenic Production   Where COMs but no bag leak detectors for fabric filters.

8. No monitoring or recordkeeping ( to serve as monitoring) is specified for work practices, such as keeping covers closed at all time except during transfer of materials. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart SSS   Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities   Where equipment required to be covered, but no monitoring to ensure covers are in place; and NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart L   Benzene from Coke By Product Recovery Plants   Where equipment required to be covered, but no monitoring to ensure covers are in place. 19 9. Monitoring of a parameter is specified, but no parameter range is specified, nor is a procedure for setting the range specified. NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart DDD  VOC from the Polymer Manufacturing Industry   For the catalytic incinerator,

Subpart OOO  Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants,

Subpart PPP  Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants, and Subpart WWW Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; and NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart K   Radionuclide Emissions from Elemental Phosphorus Plants.

To focus analysis of and comment on this table, we have developed the following questions for which we request specific, detailed comments, information, and relevant data:

Question 1: Are the monitoring patterns identified in the table accurate? Are there other examples not included in the table ( monitoring in SIPs addressed below in Question 4 )? Please specify additional examples, including citations to the specific standards and requirements of concern within the standards. Are there other ways to identify inadequate monitoring? For example, would identifying inadequate monitoring by source category,

industry, pollutant, emission limitation, and/ or pollution control device be more useful?

Question 2: What kinds of revisions or improvements would you suggest be made to enhance inadequate monitoring? Types of revisions or improvements that could be made through rulemaking include, but are not limited to: ( 1) more frequent monitoring using existing monitoring methods, ( 2) the collection of data that is more representative of 20 1 The SIP based permitting programs are permitting programs approved into the SIP by EPA, which may result in case by case monitoring requirements. Such programs do not include operating permits programs required under title V of the Act. The existence and specific requirements of such programs varies from State to State. Examples of SIP based permitting programs include minor new source review ( NSR) and major NSR programs required under title I of the Act, federally enforceable State operating permits ( FESOPS), and potentially others. For example, a major NSR permit may require monitoring to show compliance with best available control technology ( BACT) or lowest achievable emission rate ( LAER). control device operation or of the industrial process, ( 3) switching from monitoring methods that provide an indication of compliance to those that measure the pollutant of interest more directly, or ( 4) a combination of the above.

Question 3: What kinds of programmatic or other changes would you suggest be used to make changes to enhance inadequate monitoring? Options include conducting rulemaking to revise emissions standards, issuing guidance or policy, or other approaches.

Please be specific on which option( s) you prefer and provide reasons for your preference( s).

Question 4: Do the patterns of monitoring identified in the table above also appear in SIP rules   including monitoring required through SIP based permitting programs1   and if so, which ones? Are there other patterns of inadequate monitoring in SIPs, and if so,

what are they? How would you suggest we go about identifying the specific standards or rules in specific implementation plans that contain potential monitoring inadequacies?

Please specify the standards, the inadequate monitoring, and the type( s) of improvements necessary to correct any potential inadequacies you identify. What programmatic changes 21 would be best to effect these changes ( e. g., EPA or State rulemaking, SIP calls, voluntary programs, issuing guidance or policy, or other means)?

Question 5: Is opacity an effective means of determining compliance with PM limits in applicable requirements such as NSPS and NESHAP? Are other monitoring technologies more effective in assuring compliance with PM limits? Please specify situations where other monitoring approaches are more appropriate and effective as indicators of compliance with PM limits. What new technologies may serve as costeffective and reliable means of determining compliance with those PM limits ( e. g., bag leak detectors which detect problems that may lead to a deviation or continuous emissions monitoring systems that directly monitor PM emissions)? Please specify when such new technologies may be warranted, including the standards, the current monitoring, and the more appropriate monitoring technology.

In this ANPR we are only seeking comments to identify potential monitoring inadequacies in Federal rules and SIP rules, and to suggest ways to correct such any inadequacies we may later determine to exist. We have not opened for comment any other provisions of the operating permits program rules in 40 CFR parts 70 and 71 or any issues related to State, local, tribal, or EPA implementation of permitting programs approved under or based on those rules.

V. What Additional Steps Are Expected After EPA Reviews Comments Received?

Once EPA receives comments on our preliminary analysis of potential monitoring inadequacies and suggestions on methods to correct such inadequacies, we will determine the appropriate next steps. The EPA believes, at this time, the next steps will likely 22 Page 22 of 22  Monitoring ANPR include rulemakings to improve monitoring requirements in some Federal rules. We are open to comments and have made no decisions as to which Federal rules have inadequate monitoring, nor on how to proceed to correct any such monitoring. Any rulemakings we may decide to undertake in the future will be conducted using notice and comment procedures. In addition, prior to finalizing any changes to Federal rules, we will consider all specific facts associated with the upgrades we propose for each standard and conduct any required analyses of burdens, including economic impacts, necessary to satisfy statutory and other requirements.

_________________________________ Date _________________________________ Michael O. Leavitt, Administrator