Discussions with States on Open Burning Rule In April 2003, EPA staff ( Debra Suzuki) called appropriate staff in each State agency to discuss the States' open burning rules.

Idaho DEQ  Daniel Salgado IDEQ stated that burning garbage is prohibited throughout the State and that rubbish ( yard waste) is allowed to be burned in burn barrels.

Oregon DEQ  Kevin Downing ODEQ stated that burning prohibited material, including plastics, is prohibited under any circumstances, even where domestic open burning is allowed. Also, burning garbage is prohibited everywhere.

Washington State Department of Ecology  Shawn Nolph Ecology stated that only natural vegetation can be burned ( i. e., no garbage or plastics).


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 128 (Thursday, July 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 39899]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP20-859-000]

Notice of Technical Conference; Northern Border Pipeline Company

    Take notice that a technical conference concerning the above-
captioned proceeding will be held remotely on August 6, 2020, at 10:00
a.m. (EDT). The purpose of the teleconference will be to discuss
comments and protests filed in the proceeding.
    At the technical conference, the parties to the proceeding should
be prepared to discuss all issues set for technical conference as
established in the May 29, 2020 Order (Northern Border Pipeline
Company, 171 FERC 61,180 (2020)). All interested persons are permitted
to attend.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice)
or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY); or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with the required
accommodations.
    All interested parties are invited to participate remotely. Staff
will use the WebEx platform to view supporting documents related to
this docket. For more information about this technical conference,
please contact John Martinic at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (202)
502-8630 by August 3, 2020, to register and to receive specific
instructions on how to participate in the WebEx platform.

    Dated: June 26, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14285 Filed 7-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 125)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36414-36420]
[DOCID:fr27jn08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 158 and 260

[Docket No. RM07-9-001; Order No. 710-A]

Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting Requirements for
Natural Gas Pipelines

Issued June 20, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Rehearing and
Granting Request for Clarification.

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

SUMMARY: In this order on rehearing, the Commission affirms its basic
determinations in Order No. 710, grants in part and denies in part
rehearing and grants clarification regarding certain revisions to its
forms and reporting requirements for natural gas pipelines.

DATES: Effective Date: This Rule will become effective July 28, 2008.
The revisions to FERC Form Nos. 2, 2-A, and 3-Q are applicable January
1, 2008, and February 28, 2009 for the termination of FERC Form No. 11.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Veloso (Technical Information), Division of Financial
Regulation, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202) 502-8363, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Scott Molony (Technical Information), Chief Accountant, Division of
Financial Regulation, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202) 502-8919, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff.

    1. This order addresses requests for rehearing and clarification of
Order No. 710, a Final Rule issued on March 21, 2008, adopting
revisions to the Commission's financial reporting requirements for
natural gas pipelines, FERC Form Nos. 2, 2-A and 3-Q.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting Requirements
for Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 710, 73 FR 19389 (Apr. 10,
2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,267 (2008) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. On September 20, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing changes to the financial forms and
reporting requirements for natural gas pipelines.\2\ The NOPR was
issued following an in-depth review of financial reporting requirements
for the natural gas, electric utility and oil pipeline industries in
the fall of 2006. The staff's review, including outreach meetings with
both form filers and users, culminated in the issuance of a Notice of
Inquiry seeking comment on the need for changes or additions to the
financial information reported in the Commission's quarterly and annual
financial reports.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting Requirements
for Natural Gas Pipelines, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR
54860 (Sept. 27, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,623 (2007) (NOPR).
    \3\ Assessment of Information Requirements for FERC Financial
Forms, Notice of Inquiry, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 35,554 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The changes adopted in the Final Rule were designed to enhance
the transparency of financial reporting by interstate natural gas
pipelines and better reflect the current market and cost information
needed for the Commission's oversight of interstate natural gas
pipeline rates. The Final Rule requires the forms' filers to provide
additional information on costs and revenues related to the disposition
of shipper-supplied gas, affiliate transactions, discounted and
negotiated rate services, and deferred income tax and state tax issues.
The Final Rule eliminated FERC Form No. 11 and incorporated the
information contained in that form into Form Nos. 2 and 3-Q. The
revisions to Form Nos. 2, 2-A and 3-Q are applicable January 1, 2008.
The revised Form Nos. 2 and 2-A are required to be filed on April 30,
2009. The termination of FERC Form No. 11 is effective February 28,
2009.

II. Requests for Rehearing and Clarification

    4. Timely requests for clarification and/or rehearing were filed by
the American Gas Association (AGA), Dominion Resources, Inc.
(Dominion), the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA),
and the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC).

A. Other Gas Revenues

    5. INGAA and Dominion filed requests for clarification or rehearing
of the elimination of an instruction on page 308 of Form Nos. 2 and 2-
A. The Final Rule revised page 308 to provide more detail regarding
revenues recorded in Account 495, Other Gas Revenues. Previously,
pipelines were required to report this information in the aggregate and
not required to include detailed information about the nature of the
business activities from which the revenues are derived. The Commission
determined that it was important for users of the data to understand
which customer classes or groups are affected by the miscellaneous gas
revenues reported in Form Nos. 2 and 2-A.\4\ Accordingly, page 308 was
revised to include a breakdown of the types of revenues in Account No.
495 to be separately reported on that schedule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Order No. 710 at P 19.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Prior to the revisions adopted in the Final Rule, the
instructions for page 308 did not require the revenue information to be
broken down but simply stated that transactions (identified in the
instructions) with annual revenues of $250,000 or more were to be
reported in the aggregate. In the Final Rule, miscellaneous revenue was
broken out into ten separate categories and the instructions for page
308, including the $250,000 threshold, were eliminated.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. at App. C, p. 308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. INGAA and Dominion request that the Commission reinstate the
$250,000 minimum threshold contained in the instructions to page 308
prior to revision of the forms. INGAA notes that in the Final Rule, the
Commission reinstated a similar minimum threshold reporting requirement
for one existing schedule and inserted the same threshold reporting
requirement for another.\7\ The Commission agreed with commenters who
argued that the absence of such minimum thresholds could add a
substantial burden to the forms' filers.\8\ We grant rehearing. We
agree that a similar burden could be imposed on filers absent the
change sought by INGAA and Dominion. Accordingly, we will reinstate a
minimum reporting threshold for page 308 and clarify that the reporting
requirements for the ten categories of discrete miscellaneous revenues
listed thereon be limited to transactions with annual revenues of
$250,000 or greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. P 22 (pages 357-8 of Form 2).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id. P 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Shipper-Supplied Gas

    8. The Final Rule adopted two new schedules to require natural gas
companies to provide detailed information regarding the acquisition and
disposition of shipper-supplied gas.\9\ The Commission noted that,
despite existing accounting and reporting requirements for gas used in

operations, gas lost, and gas sold, Form Nos. 2 and 2-A users are
unable to readily determine the disposition and value of shipper-
supplied gas that exceeds the pipelines' operational needs or the
source and cost of any gas acquired to meet deficiencies in shipper-
supplied gas.\10\ Given the rising cost of gas and a lack of detailed,
current information, the Commission adopted new schedules for Form Nos.
2, 2-A and 3-Q to require the following information: (1) The difference
between the volume of gas received from shippers and the volume of gas
consumed in pipeline operations each month; (2) the disposition of any
excess and the accounting recognition given to such disposition
including the basis of valuing the gas and the specific accounts
charged or credited; and (3) the source of gas used to meet any
deficiency and the accounting recognition given to the gas used to meet
the deficiency, including the accounting basis of the gas and the
specific account(s) charged or credited.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NOPR at P 37.
    \11\ Id. P 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The Final Rule declined to adopt additional information
requirements related to shipper-supplied gas and concluded that the
requested information was already available to the forms' users or that
adding requirements might upset the delicate balance between burden and
benefit.\12\ On rehearing, AGA argues that the Commission erred by
failing to adopt AGA's suggestion that the new information reported on
pages 521a and 521b of Form Nos. 2, 2-A and 3-Q should be broken down
by function and include, by function, the amount of fuel that has been
waived, discounted, or reduced as part of a negotiated rate
agreement.\13\ The Commission declined to adopt the additional detail
requested by AGA, pointing out that certain fuel information, broken
out by function, is already available on page 520 of Form Nos. 2 and 2-
A.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Order No. 710 at P 16.
    \13\ AGA Request for Rehearing at 2.
    \14\ Order No. 710 at P 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. AGA's request for rehearing argues that, while page 520 of the
form provides certain fuel information by function, the information is
not adequate to enable a form user to determine where on the pipeline
system fuel costs are being incurred and how they are being
allocated.\15\ As stated in the Final Rule, Page 520 of Form Nos. 2 and
2-A provides fuel losses by function (unaccounted for gas is broken out
by function at lines 30-34).\16\ AGA argues that additional detail
regarding fuel costs is required for schedules 521a and 521b to ensure
that the Commission and pipeline customers have the information
required to assess the justness and reasonableness of pipeline
rates.\17\ The Final Rule approved extensive revisions to Form Nos. 2,
2-A and 3-Q with respect to the disposition of shipper supplied gas,
adding two new schedules to the forms to accommodate the information
collection.\18\ INGAA and other pipeline commenters objected to the
changes as burdensome, but the Commission deemed the collection of this
information critical in light of the increased impact on the pipeline's
cost of service as a result of rising gas prices.\19\ At the same time,
the Commission noted that the need to provide greater transparency with
regard to fuel costs had to be balanced with the additional reporting
burdens placed on the pipeline, and the Commission approved the new
schedules as a fair reflection of this balance.\20\ In addition, the
Commission stated that some of the information sought by AGA, i.e.,
certain data broken out by function, is already available on page 520
of Form Nos. 2 and 2-A and the Final Rule added page 520 to Form No. 3-
Q as well. While the detail sought by AGA might provide additional
clarity with respect to fuel costs, we do not believe its exclusion
will preclude the Commission's or customers' ability to assess the
justness and reasonableness of pipeline rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ AGA Request for Rehearing at 5.
    \16\ Order No. 710 at P 16.
    \17\ See AGA Request for Rehearing at 5-6.
    \18\ See Order No. 710 at P 16.
    \19\ Id. See also Public Service Commission of New York,
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Pennsylvania Office of
Consumer Advocate v. National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 115 FERC ]
61,299 (2006), order approving uncontested settlement, 118 FERC ]
61,091 (2007).
    \20\ Order No. 710 at P 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. We also deem unnecessary and burdensome AGA's request that
pipelines provide information regarding the amount of fuel that a
pipeline has waived, discounted or reduced as part of a negotiated rate
agreement. AGA argues that some pipelines currently provide information
in periodic fuel reports regarding fuel that has been waived,
discounted, or reduced as part of a negotiated rate agreement. In
support, AGA cites a fuel report filed by Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(Dominion Transmission).\21\ The report cited by AGA is a 20-page
annual fuel report filed by Dominion Transmission pursuant to a rate
settlement agreement, and exceeds, in significant detail, the type of
financial and rate information the Commission deems appropriate for
Forms 2, 2-A and 3-Q. It is unlikely that all pipelines would have this
information readily available since many pipelines do not periodically
file to adjust fuel rates and may not keep records of this type of
information. Further, it is not apparent that the level of fuel
associated with these types of transactions is significant enough to
warrant additional reporting requirements. Customers of pipelines that
use fuel tracking mechanisms and file periodic true-up reports may
explore these issues in the context of the pipeline's periodic fuel
filings. For these reasons, we deny AGA's request for rehearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See AGA Request for Rehearing at 3, citing Dominion
Transmission, Inc., Docket No. RP00-632-023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Reinstatement of Periodic Rate Filing Requirement

    12. The KCC's request for rehearing argues that the Final Rule did
not address its proposal to reinstate a periodic rate-refiling
requirement as a condition to issuance of a blanket certificate for
open access transportation service under Part 284 of the Commission's
regulations.\22\ The KCC states that the Commission has the ability to
impose conditions under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and
that conditioning blanket certificate authority on periodic filing of
general section 4 rate cases would be within the Commission's
authority.\23\ Further, the KCC argues that imposing such a condition
would not violate the distinction between sections 4 and 5 of the NGA
any more than when the Commission imposed a triennial rate filing
requirement as a condition to receipt of a purchased gas adjustment
(PGA) clause in pipeline tariffs.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ KCC Request for Rehearing at 8.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ See Order No. 710 at P 12.
    \26\ Public Service Commission of New York v. FERC, 866 F.2d
487, 489 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (PSNY v. FERC); see also United
Distribution Companies v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Contrary to KCC's claim, the Final Rule addressed its request
that the Commission reinstate a periodic rate-refiling requirement.\25\
It is well settled that the Commission may not compromise the limits of
section 5 of the NGA on the Commission's power to revise rates.\26\ The
KCC's proposal is inconsistent with that limitation on the Commission's
powers. In PSCNY v. FERC, the court reviewed the Commission's orders in
a pipeline's first NGA section 4 rate case after it had received a
certificate of public

convenience and necessity pursuant to section 7 of the NGA. In those
orders, the Commission approved the pipeline's proposed rates. However,
because the pipeline's rate base was expected to continue declining,
the Commission required that the pipeline file a new section 4 rate
case every three years so as to minimize the possibility of the
pipeline recovering an excessive return on equity.\27\ The court
rejected the Commission's decision and held that the Commission's
action would destroy the balance struck by the NGA in sections 4 and 5
of the act.\28\ The court further admonished the Commission that it had
considered earlier efforts by the Commission to ``escape the
inconveniences of Sec.  5,'' citing Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v.
FERC, 613 F.2d 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (Panhandle). In Panhandle, the
Commission had issued a section 7 certificate and conditioned the
certificate on the pipeline's crediting revenues from the new service
to customers of other pipeline services. The court labeled the
condition as ``a de facto reduction in existing rates,'' and concluded
that ``in light of the distinctions between Sec. Sec.  4 and 5, FERC's
proposed tinkering with existing rates would `effectively emasculate
the role of section 5 in the ratemaking scheme'.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ PSNY v. FERC, 866 F.2d at 490.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ PSCNY v. FERC, 866 F.2d at 490. See also Northern Natural
Gas Co. v. FERC, 780 F.2d 59 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Along the same lines, in United Distribution Companies v. FERC,
the court affirmed the Commission's refusal in Order No. 636 to impose
a three-year rate review on open access pipelines with blanket
certificates.\30\ The court rejected the claim of those in favor of
retaining triennial rate review that the market-based sales authority
granted to pipelines in Order No. 636 and Straight Fixed Variable (SFV)
transportation rate design required by that order are benefits to which
a periodic rate filing requirement may be attached.\31\ The court
pointed out that pipelines were leaving the sales business, and
``whatever the benefits of SFV rate design to pipelines, they are not
benefits voluntarily accepted by the pipelines and so cannot be the
basis for imposition of periodic rate review.'' \32\ The court also
cited the decision in PSCNY v. FERC ``noting that FERC's authority to
impose a periodic rate review in the PGA context `obviously rests on
pipeline consent' to triennial rate review in exchange for automatic
PGA adjustment authority.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ United Distribution Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 110, 1175-6.
    \31\ Id. at 1176.
    \32\ Id. at 1176.
    \33\ Id. at 1176, citing PSCNY v. FERC, 866 F.2d at 492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. The relief requested by KCC in this proceeding is the same and
must be rejected for the same reasons. As the court has pointed out,
the rate refiling requirement that was once imposed in exchange for the
pipeline's ability to recover purchased gas costs through a tracker was
based upon the voluntary acceptance by the pipeline of a rate refiling
condition. In addition, allowing pipelines to track gas costs through a
PGA was an exception to the Commission's general ratemaking policy that
pipelines may not change individual components of their cost of service
without filing a general section 4 rate case. Therefore, if a pipeline
chose not to accept the option of PGA recovery of gas costs, its
alternative was to adjust its rates for changes in its gas costs in a
general section 4 rate case. Because that alternative was consistent
with the Commission's general ratemaking policy, it was as consistent
with the public interest as the PGA recovery option. KCC's proposal is
dissimilar in both respects. In today's natural gas market, open access
transportation is so fundamental to the manner in which pipelines
conduct business that there is no realistic option for a pipeline not
to retain its blanket certificate. The alternative would require a
return to the pre-open access past when pipelines provided only
individually certificated service requiring abandonment proceedings
under section 7 of the NGA and would deprive the pipeline's customers
and the public at large of the many benefits of open access
transportation service. It is unlikely that a pipeline would
``voluntarily'' consent to such a condition and, in any event, the
pipeline's alternative of discontinuing open access transportation
service would not be in the public interest.
    16. The revisions to Form Nos. 2, 2-A and 3-Q adopted in the Final
Rule were designed to provide a level of information that would enhance
the ability of the Commission and pipeline customers to assess the
justness and reasonableness of pipeline rates. As we stated in the
Final Rule, the Commission cannot compel a pipeline to file a rate case
under section 4, nor can it preclude it from filing under section 4 for
any reason.\34\ The Commission's efforts in this regard reflect its
awareness that pipeline customers need additional information to make a
reasonable assessment of a pipeline's cost of service, and we believe
that the Final Rule accomplishes that goal. Accordingly, we deny the
KCC's request for rehearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Order No. 710 at P 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Miscellaneous

    17. Following the issuance of the Final Rule, staff discovered a
few inadvertent errors in two of the revised schedules, pages 278 and
299. These revisions are for purposes of clarification and do not
affect the level of information requested in the forms.
    18. Column (a) on page 278 is revised to reference liabilities
rather than assets. The column labeled ``Written off During Quarter/
Year Account Charged'' replaces the word ``charged'' with ``credited.''
The column labeled ``Debits'' is revised to read ``Credits.''
    19. The instructions to page 299, Monthly Quantity & Revenue Data
by Rate Schedule are revised as reflected on the attached schedule.
The Commission Orders
    The requests for clarification and/or rehearing are granted in part
and denied in part as discussed in the body of this order.

    By the Commission. Commissioner Wellinghoff dissenting in part
with a separate statement attached.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JN08.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JN08.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JN08.002

BILLING CODE 6717-01-C

WELLINGHOFF, Commissioner, dissenting in part:

    On rehearing, the American Gas Association (AGA) continues to
recommend that the Commission require pipelines to provide shipper-
supplied gas information reported on Sheets 521a/b by function and to
include, by function, the amount of fuel that has been waived,
discounted or reduced as part of a negotiated rate agreement. The
Commission rejects AGA's proposals. I disagree.
    In denying the request for shipper-supplied gas information
reported on Sheets 521a/b by function, the majority acknowledges that
the detail sought by AGA would bring additional clarity to fuel costs.
However, the majority states that the additional information is not
needed to assess the justness and reasonableness of the pipeline's
rates. The majority further states that the additional reporting would
be too burdensome.
    The Commission recognizes that shipper-supplied gas information is
critical to the clarity and transparency needed to support a reasonable
analysis of fuel gas costs.\35\ Sheets 521a/b operate in tandem with
Sheet 520. Sheet 520 provides fuel gas costs by function. A shipper
pays for fuel costs by function whether the fuel rate is fixed or
tracked. Sheets 521a/b provide the volume and revenue from the
disposition of excess shipper-supplied gas. However, unless Sheets
521a/b are broken out by function, a shipper cannot match the revenues
generated by the sale of excess fuel with the functionalized costs.
Thus, because the fuel rate would include both gas costs and excess gas
revenues, the information sought by AGA is critical to assessing the
justness and reasonableness of the pipeline's fuel rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting Requirements
for Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 710, 73 FR 19389 (Apr. 10,
2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,267 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In denying the request for the amount of fuel by function that has
been waived, discounted or reduced as part of a negotiated rate
agreement, the majority states that it is unlikely that all pipelines
would have this information readily available. The majority also
asserts that it is not apparent that the level of fuel associated with
these types of transactions is significant enough to warrant additional
reporting.
    With most pipeline expansions backstopped with negotiated rate
contracts, I believe that the fuel associated with these types of
transactions is not insignificant. Regardless of the level of fuel, the
Commission has a strict policy that existing shippers must not
subsidize the negotiated rate program.\36\ In fact, in this proceeding,
the Commission has stated that because pipelines may provide services
from the same facilities using different rates--negotiated, discounted
or recourse rates--it is important to know the level of services
provided under each rate structure in order to protect against cross-
subsidization. Therefore, fuel costs and revenues of the different
types of rate structures broken down by function are critical to
assessing the justness and reasonableness of a pipeline's fuel rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Alternative Rate Policy Statement, 74 FERC ] 61,076 at
61,242 (1996), and NorAm Gas Transmission Company, 77 FERC ] 61,011
(1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the reporting burden, the information requested by
AGA is readily available. The pipeline maintains this information by
function in order to change its fuel rate either in a tracking
mechanism or its next section 4 rate filing, and to assure that its
existing customers are not subsidizing the negotiated rate program.\37\
The increased burden is related solely to inputting the data in the
Form 2. I believe that the increased burden is justified by the utility
of the information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Alternative Rate Policy Statement, 74 FERC ] 61,076 at
61,241 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part from today's
order.

Jon Wellinghoff,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. E8-14463 Filed 6-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR STANDARD FORM 83 STATIONARY RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ( a) Title of the Information Collection " Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines."

ICR1975.01 ( b) Short Characterization This supporting statement addresses information collection activities that would be imposed by the proposed " National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines," 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ.

These standards fulfill the requirements of section 112 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as amended in 1990, which requires the EPA to promulgate standards for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines ( RICE).

The information collection activities in this ICR include: continuous emission monitoring, stack tests, continuous operating parameter monitoring, one time and periodic reports, and the maintenance of records. The information collection activities will enable the EPA to determine initial and continuous compliance with emission standards for the regulated pollutants.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection 2 The EPA is required under section 112 of the CAA to establish national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) that reflect the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) for achieving continuous emission reductions. Section 112( d) states:

Emissions standards promulgated under this subsection and applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants shall require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants subject to this section that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable for new or existing sources in the category or subcategory to which such emission standard applies . . . .

Section 112( i) further states:

After the effective date of any emissions standard, limitation or regulation promulgated under this section and applicable to a source, no person may operate such source in violation of such standard, limitation or regulation . . . .

In addition, section 114( a)( 1) states that:

. . . the Administrator may require any person who owns or operates any emission source or who is subject to any requirement of this Act . . . to ( A) establish and maintain such records, ( B) make such reports, ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment or methods, ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such methods, at such locations, at such intervals, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe), and ( E) provide such other information, as he may reasonably require.

Certain reports are necessary to enable the Administrator to identify stationary RICE subject to the proposed regulation and to determine if the standards are being achieved.

( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The information will be used by the EPA to identify sources subject to the standards and ensure that the emission standards are being met. Records and reports are 3 necessary to enable the EPA to identify facilities that may not be in compliance with the standards. Based on reported information, EPA will decide which facilities should be inspected and what records or units should be inspected at the facilities. The records that facilities maintain will indicate to EPA whether facility personnel are operating and maintaining the equipment properly.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ( a) Nonduplication Duplication in the reporting of stationary RICE information is not anticipated. If the standard has not been delegated, the information is sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated State or local agency. If a State or local agency has adopted their own similar regulation to implement the Federal regulation, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standard. Therefore,

no duplication exists.

( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB A public notice of this collection will be provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking for the NESHAP.

( c) Consultations In September 1996, the EPA chartered the Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking ( ICCR) advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 4 ( FACA). The committee's objective was to develop recommendations for regulations for several combustion source categories under sections 112 and 129 of the CAA. The ICCR advisory committee, known as the Coordinating Committee, formed Source Work Groups for the various combustor types covered under the ICCR. One work group, the RICE Work Group, was formed to research issues related to stationary RICE. The RICE Work Group submitted recommendations, information, and data analysis results to the Coordinating Committee, which in turn considered them and submitted recommendations and information to the EPA. The Committee's recommendations were considered by the EPA in developing these regulations for stationary RICE.

The public will also have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed NESHAP and this ICR during the specified comment period.

( d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection The frequency of the proposed data collection requirements was chosen by the EPA to provide reasonable assurance that a facility is in compliance with the standard.

Less frequent collection could result in long term exceedances of the applicable emission standards.

( e) General Guidelines With the exception of requiring records to be maintained for more than 3 years,

none of the guidelines in CFR 1320.5 are being exceeded. This rule requires all records to be maintained for a period of 5 years, which is consistent with the General Provisions under 40 CFR part 63.

( f) Confidentiality 5 The type of data that would be required is principally emissions data and would not be confidential. If any information is submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made, the information would be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information.

( g) Sensitive Questions This section is not applicable because the ICR does not involve matters of a sensitive nature.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes Respondents are owners or operators of existing, new or reconstructed stationary RICE that have a manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than 500 brake horsepower ( HP) and are located at a major source of hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions. A major source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons or more per year of any single HAP or 25 tons or more per year of any combination of HAPs. These standards affect any industry, State, local, or tribal government using a stationary RICE as defined in the regulation. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes for facilities using stationary RICE affected by the proposed regulation include: 2211 ( Electric Power Generation, Transmission, or Distribution),

48621 ( Natural Gas Transmission), 211111 ( Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Production), 2111112 ( Natural Gas Liquids Producers), and 92811 ( National Security). 6 ( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items: Attachment 1, Source Data and Information Requirements,

summarizes the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this proposed regulation.

( ii) Respondent Activities: The respondent activities required by the proposed regulation are provided under the first column of Tables 2 through 4, introduced in section 6( a).

( iii) Summary of Monitoring Requirements: The monitoring activities in this ICR include: continuous emission monitoring, stack tests, and continuous operating parameter monitoring. The monitoring requirements are dependent on engine subcategory and size. There are four stationary RICE subcategories that have monitoring requirements: spark ignition, two stroke lean burn ( 2SLB); spark ignition, four stroke lean burn ( 4SLB); spark ignition, four stroke rich burn ( 4SRB); and compression ignition.

These subcategories are then further divided into two HP ranges: stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating less than 5,000, and stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5,000. After evaluating the ratio of total control and monitoring costs to the equipment costs, the EPA determined that requirements that are economically feasible for larger size stationary RICE might be prohibitive for smaller size stationary RICE. Thus, a distinction was made between stationary RICE size, and less burdensome compliance requirements were selected for smaller size stationary RICE.

Spark ignition, 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and compression ignition stationary RICE must reduce carbon monoxide ( CO) emissions by a specified percentage 7 using an oxidation catalyst. Sources in these subcategories that are less than 5,000 HP must conduct an initial stack test for CO and then conduct subsequent stack tests quarterly. These sources will also be required to continuously monitor the catalyst pressure drop and catalyst inlet temperature. Sources in these subcategories that are greater than 5,000 HP must conduct continuous monitoring of CO emissions at the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst using a continuous emission monitoring system ( CEMS). Sources must conduct a performance evaluation of the CEMS as part of the initial compliance demonstration, and conduct an annual relative accuracy test audit ( RATA) of the CEMS .

Spark ignition, 4SRB stationary RICE must reduce formaldehyde emissions by a specified percentage. Facilities must conduct an initial performance test for formaldehyde and then continuously monitor catalyst pressure drop and temperature rise. Facilities greater than 5,000 HP must also conduct annual stack tests for formaldehyde to demonstrate compliance with the standard.

Two other subcategories of stationary RICE, stationary RICE that fire landfill and digester gas as primary fuel and emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE, are required to submit a one time initial notification but have no monitoring requirements.

The following stationary RICE do not have to meet the requirements of subpart ZZZZ:

existing spark ignition 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE, existing compression ignition stationary RICE, stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 HP or less, and stationary RICE located at area sources of HAP emissions.

The proposed NESHAP allow sources to meet a formaldehyde emission limitation 8 as an alternative to the requirement to reduce CO or formaldehyde emissions by a specified percentage. Sources meeting the alternative standard would have different monitoring requirements than sources meeting the requirement to reduce CO or formaldehyde emissions. However, the EPA does not expect any sources to meet the alternative standard for 5 to 10 years.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES,

COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ( a) Agency Activities A list of Agency activities for the first 3 years following the effective date of the standard is provided in Tables 5 through 7, which are introduced in section 6( c).

( b) Collection Methodology and Management Data obtained during periodic visits by EPA personnel, from records maintained by the respondents, and from information provided in semiannual reports will be tabulated and published for internal EPA use in compliance and enforcement programs. The proposed rule allows records to be retained in hard copy or electronic format to allow flexibility and minimize burden.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility Minimizing the information collection burden for all sizes of organizations is a continuing effort for the EPA. The Stationary RICE NESHAP is applicable only to major sources. The RICE MACT does not apply to stationary RICE below 500 HP. The monitoring and compliance requirements for stationary RICE between 500 HP and 5000 9 HP are less stringent than the monitoring requirements for stationary RICE above 5000 HP. These regulatory provisions provide flexibility in compliance and monitoring for all stationary RICE including RICE operated by small entities.

We do not believe that the NESHAP will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, although the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for small and larger businesses, these requirements are considered the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot be reduced further for small businesses.

( d) Collection Schedule Existing sources must submit an initial notification that the source is subject to the standard within 120 days after the source becomes subject to the relevant standard. New sources for which construction or reconstruction has commenced and initial startup occurs before the effective date of this standard must submit an initial notification no later than 120 days after the effective date of the standard. New sources for which the construction or reconstruction commenced after the effective date of the standard must submit the following: notification of construction/ reconstruction; notification of anticipated startup,

delivered or postmarked not more than 60 days or less than 30 days before anticipated startup; and notification of actual startup, delivered or postmarked within 15 days after actual startup.

Sources who are required to conduct a performance test or performance evaluation must submit a notification 60 days prior to each performance test or performance evaluation. Sources who must conduct performance testing to demonstrate 10 initial compliance must submit an initial notification of compliance within 180 days after completion of the initial compliance demonstration. Sources whose initial compliance demonstration does not include performance testing must submit an initial notification of compliance within 30 days of the initial compliance demonstration. All facilities must submit to the EPA a semiannual compliance report that includes any exceedances and malfunctions.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden It is estimated that 514 new affected facilities will come online in each of the next 3 years. A breakdown of the number of new facilities each year, by subcategory and horsepower range, is given in Table 1. Of the 514 new facilities each year, 407 will have four stationary RICE per facility ( the stationary RICE at these facilities are greater than 500 HP and less than 5,000 HP). Two facilities will have only one stationary RICE per facility ( the stationary RICE at these facilities are greater than or equal to 5,000 HP).

Three other facilities will have digester or landfill gas stationary RICE, and 102 facilities will have emergency power stationary RICE. The digester gas, landfill gas, and emergency power stationary RICE facilities will have no requirements except for an initial notification. No reconstructed stationary RICE are projected in the next 3 years. The impact on existing facilities was not included because these facilities do not have to comply with the regulation until 3 years after the effective date. 11 TABLE 1. NUMBER OF NEW STATIONARY RICE FACILITIES PER YEAR Subcategory Number of New Facilities Per Year Number of Stationary RICE Per Facility Spark ignition, 2SLB 501  4999 HP

5000 HP 10  4

Spark ignition, 4SLB 501  4999 HP

5000 HP 111 1 4 1 Spark ignition, 4SRB 501  4999 HP

5000 HP 86 1 4 1 Compression ignition 501  4999 HP

5000 HP 200  4

Landfill and digester gas 3 1 Emergency power 102 3 An itemized breakdown of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements with the annual cost and labor requirements for the respondents subject to the NESHAP for the 3

year period following promulgation is presented in Tables 2 through 4. The annual cost and labor respondent burden estimates for the first year after promulgation are provided in Table 2. The burden estimates for years 2 and 3 are presented in Tables 3 and 4,

respectively. These numbers were derived from the EPA's experience with other standards and from discussions with industry representatives.

( b) Estimating Respondent Costs The information collection activities for sources subject to these requirements are presented in Tables 2 through 4. The total cost for each respondent activity includes 12 TABLE 2. RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING FOR THE FIRST YEAR Number of Capital/ Startup Person hours occurrences Person hours Respondents Technical Management Clerical Cost O& M Cost Total Cost ($)

Burden Item per occurrence per year per respondent per year person hours person hours person hours ( per respondent) ( per respondent) Year 1 1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions 4 1 4 514 2,056 103 206 100,230 B. Required Activities  Performance Tests  4SRB < 5000 HP 24 1 24 86 2,064 103 206 6,980,620  4SRB >= 5000 HP 8 1 8 1 8 0 1 20,390  quarterly 24 4 96 321 30,816 1,541 3,082 1,502,280  Performance Evaluation 12 1 12 1 12 1 1 12,232 C. Gather Existing Information Included in 3D D. Write Report  Notification of construction/ 2 1 2 409 818 41 82 39,878 reconstruction  Notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 409 818 41 82 39,878  Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 409 818 41 82 39,878  Notification of performance evaluation 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 98  Notification of performance test  one time per year 2 1 2 87 174 9 17 8,483  quarterly 2 4 8 321 2,568 128 257 125,190  Initial notification for exempt RICE 2 1 2 105 210 11 21 10,238  Initial notification of compliance 2 1 2 409 818 41 82 39,878  Compliance report 4 2 8 409 3,272 164 327 159,510 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions 4 1 4 409 1,636 82 164 79,755 B. Train personnel 16 1 16 409 6,544 327 654 319,020 C. Continuous monitoring  Purchase and install CEMS 120 1 120 1 120 6 12 23,421 29,271  CEMS QA/ QC 0.5 365 183 1 183 9 18 2,870 11,767  Purchase and install CPM  portable CO monitor 40 1 40 321 12,840 642 1,284 583 1,873 1,414,326  pressure and temp. ( small RICE) 40 1 40 407 16,280 814 1,628 1,708 1,488,806  pressure and temp. ( large RICE) 30 1 30 1 30 2 3 427 1,890  Record information 0.5 12 6 409 2,454 123 245 119,633 SUBTOTAL BURDEN AND COST 84,541 4,227 8,454 12,543,246 AVERAGE PER RESPONDENT 164 8 16 24,403 * Costs are based on March 1999 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Trends total compensation index which includes wages, salaries, and benefits.

Costs are estimated using the following hourly rates: technical at $ 43, management at $ 59 and clerical at $ 28. 13 TABLE 3. RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING FOR THE SECOND YEAR Number of Capital/ Startup Person hours occurrences Person hours Respondents Technical Management Clerical Cost O& M Cost Total Cost ($)

Burden Item per occurrence per year per respondent per year person hours person hours person hours ( per respondent) ( per respondent) Year 2 1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions 4 1 4 514 2,056 103 206 100,230 B. Required Activities  Performance Tests  4SRB < 5000 HP 24 1 24 86 2,064 103 206 6,980,620  4SRB >= 5000 HP 8 1 8 2 16 1 2 40,780  quarterly 24 4 96 642 61,632 3,082 6,163 3,004,560  Performance Evaluation 12 1 12 1 12 1 1 12,232  Annual RATA 12 1 12 1 12 1 1 8,756 C. Gather Existing Information Included in 3D D. Write Report  Notification of construction/ 2 1 2 409 818 41 82 39,878 reconstruction  Notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 409 818 41 82 39,878  Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 409 818 41 82 39,878  Notification of performance evaluation 2 1 2 2 4 0.2 0.4 195  Notification of performance test  one time per year 2 1 2 88 176 9 18 8,580  quarterly 2 4 8 642 5,136 257 514 250,380  Initial notification for exempt RICE 2 1 2 105 210 11 21 10,238  Initial notification of compliance 2 1 2 409 818 41 82 39,878  Compliance report 4 2 8 818 6,544 327 654 319,020 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions 4 1 4 409 1,636 82 164 79,755 B. Train personnel 16 1 16 409 6,544 327 654 319,020 C. Continuous monitoring  Purchase and install CEMS 120 1 120 2 120 6 12 23,421 52,692  CEMS QA/ QC 0.5 365 183 2 365 18 37 2,870 23,534  Purchase and install CPM  portable CO monitor 40 1 40 642 12,840 642 1,284 583 1,873 2,202,702  pressure and temp. ( small RICE) 40 1 40 814 16,280 814 1,628 1,708 2,183,962  pressure and temp. ( large RICE) 30 1 30 2 30 2 3 427 2,317  Record information 0.5 12 6 818 4,908 245 491 239,265 SUBTOTAL BURDEN AND COST 123,857 6,193 12,386 15,998,347 AVERAGE PER RESPONDENT 134 7 13 17,333 * Costs are based on March 1999 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Trends total compensation index which includes wages, salaries, and benefits.

Costs are estimated using the following hourly rates: technical at $ 43, management at $ 59 and clerical at $ 28. 14 TABLE 4. RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING FOR THE THIRD YEAR Number of Capital/ Startup Person hours occurrences Person hours Respondents Technical Management Clerical Cost O& M Cost Total Cost ($)

Burden Item per occurrence per year per respondent per year person hours person hours person hours ( per respondent) ( per respondent) Year 3 1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions 4 1 4 514 2,056 103 206 100,230 B. Required Activities  Performance Tests  4SRB < 5000 HP 24 1 24 86 2,064 103 206 6,980,620  4SRB >= 5000 HP 8 1 8 3 24 1 2 61,170  quarterly 24 4 96 963 92,448 4,622 9,245 4,506,840  Performance Evaluation 12 1 12 1 12 1 1 12,232  Annual RATA 12 1 12 2 24 1 2 17,512 C. Gather Existing Information Included in 3D D. Write Report  Notification of construction/ 2 1 2 409 818 41 82 39,878 reconstruction  Notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 409 818 41 82 39,878  Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 409 818 41 82 39,878  Notification of performance evaluation 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 293  Notification of performance test  one time per year 2 1 2 89 178 9 18 8,678  quarterly 2 4 8 963 7,704 385 770 375,570  Initial notification for exempt RICE 2 1 2 105 210 11 21 10,238  Initial notification of compliance 2 1 2 409 818 41 82 39,878  Compliance report 4 2 8 1,227 9,816 491 982 478,530 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions 4 1 4 409 1,636 82 164 79,755 B. Train personnel 16 1 16 409 6,544 327 654 319,020 C. Continuous monitoring  Purchase and install CEMS 120 1 120 3 120 6 12 23,421 76,113  CEMS QA/ QC 0.5 365 183 3 548 27 55 2,870 35,301  Purchase and install CPM  portable CO monitor 40 1 40 963 12,840 642 1,284 583 1,873 2,991,078  pressure and temp. ( small RICE) 40 1 40 1,221 16,280 814 1,628 1,708 2,879,118  pressure and temp. ( large RICE) 30 1 30 3 30 2 3 427 2,744  Record information 0.5 12 6 1,227 7,362 368 736 358,898 SUBTOTAL BURDEN AND COST 163,174 8,159 16,317 19,453,447 AVERAGE PER RESPONDENT 123 6 12 14,605 * Costs are based on March 1999 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Trends total compensation index which includes wages, salaries, and benefits.

Costs are estimated using the following hourly rates: technical at $ 43, management at $ 59 and clerical at $ 28. 15 labor costs, capital/ startup costs, and operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs.

( i) Estimating Labor Costs Labor rates, on a per hour basis, are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) web site ( http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release) as posted for March 1999. The base labor rates are $ 18.59 for technical personnel, $ 25.31 for management, and $ 11.90 for clerical. The total compensation rate is $ 25.72 for technical personnel, $ 35.18 for managerial, and $ 16.63 for clerical. This accounts for paid leave, insurance, etc. The compensation rates were then adjusted by an overhead and profit rate of 167 percent. The final total wage rates are $ 43 for technical personnel, $ 59 for management, and $ 28 for clerical.

Labor costs for formaldehyde performance tests and the CEMS performance evaluation and RATA were estimated through contact with the testing industry. Each formaldehyde performance test is assumed to cost $ 20,000 per stationary RICE, and each CEMS performance evaluation is $ 12,232. The cost of the annual RATA is $ 8,756 per year.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup Costs Capital costs associated with this NESHAP result from the purchase and installation of CEMS, portable CO monitors, and a continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS). The facilities that have stationary RICE greater than 5,000 HP are required to have a CEMS; all other facilities will have a CPMS, and the EPA estimated that each stationary RICE will have its own CPMS.

Capital costs are based on consultation with equipment vendors and industry experts. The estimated CEMS total annualized capital cost is $ 23,421 per CEMS. Portable CO monitors are expected to have an annualized capital cost of $ 583. Each facility can purchase one portable CO monitor and use it for several stationary RICE. The annualized capital cost of a CPMS for pressure drop and temperature monitoring is $ 427 per CPMS. 16 ( iii) Total Operation and Maintenance Costs Costs associated with operation and maintenance ( O& M) are the annual operating and maintenance costs of the CEMS and portable CO monitors. These costs were also estimated through contact with equipment vendors and industry experts. The estimated total annual O& M cost of each CEMS is $ 2,870. The estimated total annual O& M cost of each portable CO monitor is $ 1,873 per facility.

( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Because the information collection requirements were developed as an incidental part of standards development, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection requirements. Because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents are required under section 112 of the CAA, no operational costs will be incurred by the Federal government. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents would occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of the EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program and, therefore, is not attributable to the ICR.

The Agency burden and cost estimates include only those items where the government would incur additional costs as a result of the information collection. These costs include user costs associated with the review and analysis of the reported information. These are presented in Tables 5 through 7. 17 TABLE 5. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COST FOR THE FIRST YEAR Technical Management Clerical EPA hours Operations person hours person hours person hours Total Cost ($)

Activity per operation per year per year per year per year Year 1 Report Review 1. Notification of construction/ reconstruction 1 409 409 20 41 19,080 2. Notification of anticipated startup 0.5 409 204 10 20 9,540 3. Notification of actual startup 0.5 409 204 10 20 9,540 4. Notification of performance evaluation 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 93 5. Notification of performance test 2 1,371 2,742 137 274 127,914 6. Initial notification for exempt RICE 0.5 105 52 3 5 2,449 7. Initial notification of compliance 2 409 818 41 82 38,160 8. Compliance Report 2 818 1,636 82 164 76,319 SUBTOTAL BURDEN AND COST 6,068 303 607 283,096 * Costs are based on January 2000 Office of Personnel Management labor statistics for Federal Workers. Costs are estimated using the following hourly rates: technical at $ 41, management at $ 67, and clerical at $ 23. 18 TABLE 6. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COST FOR THE SECOND YEAR Technical Management Clerical EPA hours Operations person hours person hours person hours Total Cost ($)

Activity per operation per year per year per year per year Year 2 Report Review 1. Notification of construction/ reconstruction 1 409 409 20 41 19,080 2. Notification of anticipated startup 0.5 409 204 10 20 9,540 3. Notification of actual startup 0.5 409 204 10 20 9,540 4. Notification of performance evaluation 2 2 4 0.2 0.4 187 5. Notification of performance test 2 2,656 5,312 266 531 247,805 6. Initial notification for exempt RICE 0.5 105 52 3 5 2,449 7. Initial notification of compliance 2 409 818 41 82 38,160 8. Compliance Report 2 1,636 3,272 164 327 152,639 SUBTOTAL BURDEN AND COST 10,276 514 1,028 479,399 * Costs are based on January 2000 Office of Personnel Management labor statistics for Federal Workers. Costs are estimated using the following hourly rates: technical at $ 41, management at $ 67, and clerical at $ 23. 19 TABLE 7. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COST FOR THE THIRD YEAR Technical Management Clerical EPA hours Operations person hours person hours person hours Total Cost ($)

Activity per operation per year per year per year per year Year 3 Report Review 1. Notification of construction/ reconstruction 1 409 409 20 41 19,080 2. Notification of anticipated startup 0.5 409 204 10 20 9,540 3. Notification of actual startup 0.5 409 204 10 20 9,540 4. Notification of performance evaluation 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 280 5. Notification of performance test 2 3,941 7,882 394 788 367,695 6. Initial notification for exempt RICE 0.5 105 52 3 5 2,449 7. Initial notification of compliance 2 409 818 41 82 38,160 8. Compliance Report 2 2,454 4,908 245 491 228,958 SUBTOTAL BURDEN AND COST 14,484 724 1,448 675,702 * Costs are based on January 2000 Office of Personnel Management labor statistics for Federal Workers. Costs are estimated using the following hourly rates: technical at $ 41, management at $ 67, and clerical at $ 23. 20 The hourly burden for review of reports was estimated through discussion with personnel from local agencies who review these types of reports. Labor rates for Federal employees are based on the January 2000 Office of Personnel Management pay rates for General Schedule employees ( see http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 2000tbls/ GShrly/ html/ GSHRBASE. HTM). The pay rates were multiplied by the standard government benefits multiplication factor of 1.6. The average hourly labor costs are $ 41 for technical personnel, $ 67 for management, and $ 23 for clerical.

( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The respondent universe was estimated through projected industry orders for stationary RICE. It is estimated that 514 new facilities will come online in each of the next 3 years. The proposed NESHAP will therefore affect 1,542 new facilities over the next 3 years. The total burden is calculated by adding the total technical, management, and clerical hours per year. The technical hours are calculated by multiplying the total hours per respondent by the number of respondents per year for each respondent activity. Management and clerical hours are assumed to be 5 percent and 10 percent of the technical hours, respectively.

The total cost is calculated by summing the labor, capital/ startup, and O& M costs. With the exception of the costs for formaldehyde performance tests and the CEMS performance evaluation and RATA, the labor costs are determined by multiplying the total labor hours by the total wage rate for each labor category. The total capital/ startup and O& M costs are calculated by multiplying the cost for each respondent by the number of respondents. Total cost is presented in the far right column of each table.

( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables ( i) Respondent Tally A breakdown for each of the collection, reporting, and 21 recordkeeping activities required by the proposed NESHAP is presented in Tables 2 through 4.

The estimate of total annual hours requested from the respondents was based on the assumptions outlined in section 6( d) of this supporting statement. The EPA estimated the respondent burden by totaling the hours for the first 3 years after the implementation of the NESHAP for technical,

managerial, and clerical staff at the facility, and then dividing that total by three to determine the average annualized burden. The 3 year summary results are presented in Table 8. For the first 3 years after the implementation of the NESHAP, the EPA estimates that industry would expend 142,436 hours annually at a cost of $ 15,998,347 per year to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping,

and reporting requirements.

( ii) The Agency Tally A breakdown for each of the Agency activities required for the NESHAP is provided in Tables 5 through 7. The bottom line Agency burden hours and costs,

presented in Table 9, are calculated by totaling the hours per year for technical, managerial, and clerical staff, and by totaling the cost column. The average annual burden is calculated by dividing the 3 year total by three. The estimated average annual burden, over the first 3 years, for the Agency would be 11,818 hours at a cost of $ 479,399 per year.

( iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line The total number of respondent labor hours in the first year for each facility is 189 hours ( 97,222/ 514 = 189). This represents a total cost to this respondent of $ 24,403 ($ 12,543,246/ 514 = $ 24,403) in the 22 TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST Number of Technical Management Clerical Total Year Respondents person hours person hours person hours person hours Total Cost ($)

First 514 84,541 4,227 8,454 97,222 12,543,246 Second 923 123,857 6,193 12,386 142,436 15,998,347 Third 1,332 163,174 8,159 16,317 187,650 19,453,447 Three Year Total 371,571 18,579 37,157 427,307 47,995,040 Annual Average 123,857 6,193 12,386 142,436 15,998,347 * Costs are based on March 1999 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Trends total compensation index which includes wages,

Costs are estimated using the following hourly rates: technical at $ 43, management at $ 59 TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF AGENCY BURDEN AND COST Number of Technical Management Clerical Total Year Respondents person hours person hours person hours person hours Total Cost ($)

First 514 6,069 303 607 6,979 283,096 Second 923 10,277 514 1,028 11,818 479,399 Third 1,332 14,485 724 1,448 16,657 675,702 Three Year Total 30,830 1,541 3,083 35,454 1,438,196 Annual Average 10,277 514 1,028 11,818 479,399 * Costs are based on January 2000 Office of Personnel Management labor statistics for Federal Workers. Costs the following hourly rates: technical at $ 41, management at $ 67, and 23 first year. In the second year the respondent hours and costs for each facility would decrease to 154 and $ 17,333; respectively. In the third year the respondent hours would be 141 and the costs would be $ 14,605.

The total burden and cost estimates for the first 3 years after the NESHAP is promulgated are given in Tables 2 through 4 and Table 8. The variation in total activity and respondent burden and cost from year to year is shown in the tables. In years 1, 2, and 3, the total costs are $ 12,543,246; $ 15,998,347; and $ 19,453,447; respectively ( see Tables 2 through 4 and 8). In year 1, 514 facilities are in startup phase. In year 2, 514 facilities are in startup phase and 514 are under normal operation. By the third year, 1,028 facilities are under normal operation, while 514 are in startup mode.

The total number of agency hours for review of reports also varies as more units start up and as the plants progress from startup reporting to annual compliance reporting. The total number of agency hours for years 1, 2, and 3 are 6,979; 11,818; and 16,657. The corresponding agency costs for activities during these years are $ 283,096; $ 479,399; and $ 675,702 ( see Table 9).

( f) Reasons for Change in Burden This is the initial estimation of burden for this ICR; therefore this section does not apply.

( g) Burden Statement Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 24 or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 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 2002 0025, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 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 open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those 25 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 0025). 26 PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in data collection associated with this regulation. ATTACHMENT 1 SOURCE DATA AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Recordkeeping Requirements 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ 5 year retention of records 63.6660( b)

Records of all notifications and reports 63.6655( a)( 1)

Records of the occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the stationary RICE and each malfunction of the air pollution control equipment 63.6655( a)( 2)

Records of performance tests and performance evaluations 63.6655( a)( 3)

Records of any malfunction of the CEMS 63.6655( b)( 1)

All CEMS calibration checks 63.6655( b)( 1)

All adjustments and maintenance performed on CEMS 63.6655( b)( 1)

Previous ( i. e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan 63.6655( b)( 2)

Request for alternatives to the relative accuracy test audit 63.6655( b)( 3)

Records of the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or during another period 63.6655( b)( 4)

Records of the catalyst pressure drop and catalyst inlet temperature/ catalyst temperature rise ( 4 hour average) 63.6655( c)

Records of the average reduction of CO emissions determined from CEMS measurements before and after the oxidation emission control device, using a 4 hour average, averaged every hour 63.6655( c) ATTACHMENT 1 SOURCE DATA AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Reporting Requirements 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ Report the following information semiannually:  company name and address  name, title, and signature of the responsible official certifying the accuracy of the report  date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period  if no deviations occurred during the period, a statement that no deviations occurred  information on deviations, startup, shutdown, and malfunctions 63.6650 Report the following information by fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the SSMP:  an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report which contains actions taken for the event 63.6650 Report the following information by letter within 7 working days after the end of the event, unless alternative arrangements have been made with the permitting authorities:  name, title, and signature of the responsible official who is certifying the accuracy of the report  the circumstances of the event  the reasons for not following the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 63.6650


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45304-45307]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18657]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0151; FRL-9706-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; The 2002 Base Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the
Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VDEQ), on April 4, 2008. The emissions inventory
is part of the Virginia April 4, 2008 SIP revision that was submitted
to meet nonattainment requirements related to Virginia's portion of the
Washington DC-MD-VA nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as
Virginia Area or Area) for the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the 2002
base year PM2.5 emissions inventory in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2010-0151 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0151, Donna Mastro, Acting Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2010-0151. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. 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 available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Asrah Khadr,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Summary of SIP Revision
III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established the
1997 PM2..5 NAAQS, including an annual standard of 15.0
[mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. EPA established the standards based on significant
evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health
effects are associated with exposures to PM2.5.
    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining
or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in
section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. In 1999, EPA and state air-quality
agencies initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS and, by January 2001, established a complete set of air-quality
monitors. On January 5, 2005, EPA promulgated initial air-quality
designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 944), which
became effective on April 5, 2005, based on air-quality monitoring data
for calendar years 2001-03.
    On April 14, 2005, EPA promulgated a supplemental rule amending the
agency's initial designations (70 FR 19844), with the same effective
date (April 5, 2005) as that which was promulgated at 70 FR 944. As a
result of this supplemental rule, PM2.5 nonattainment
designations are in effect for 39 areas, comprising 208 counties within
20 states (and the District of Columbia) nationwide, with a combined
population of approximately 88 million. The Virginia Area which is the
subject of this rulemaking was included in the list of areas not
attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The Virginia Area consists
of the following cities and counties in Virginia: Arlington County,
Alexandria City, Fairfax County, Loudoun County and Prince William
County.
    On January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1146), EPA determined that Virginia had
attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Virginia Area. That
determination was based upon quality assured, quality controlled and
certified ambient air monitoring data that showed the Area had
monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2004-
2006 monitoring period and that continued to show attainment of the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2005-2007 data. The January
12, 2009 determination suspended the requirements for Virginia to
submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available
control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency
measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the
standard for so long as the nonattainment area continues to meet the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. On January 23, 2012, VDEQ submitted a
request for withdrawal of the Virginia 1997 PM2.5 SIP
revisions including the withdrawal of the attainment plan, analysis of
reasonably available control measures, attainment demonstration,
contingency plans and mobile source budgets. To meet the requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(3), Virginia did not request the withdrawal of
the 2002 base

year emission inventory portion of the 1997 PM2.5 SIP
revisions. Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and
approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The 2002 base year emission inventory submitted by VDEQ on April 4,
2008 includes emissions estimates that cover the general source
categories of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. The pollutants that comprise
the inventory are nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), PM2.5, coarse particles (PM10),
ammonia (NH3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). EPA has
reviewed the results, procedures and methodologies for the base year
emissions inventory submitted by VDEQ. The year 2002 was selected by
VDEQ as the base year for the emissions inventory per 40 CFR
51.1008(b). A discussion of the emissions inventory development as well
as the emissions inventory can be found in Appendix B of the April 3,
2008 SIP submittal.
    Table 1 provides a summary of the annual 2002 emissions of
NOX, VOCs, PM2.5, PM10,
NH3, and SO2 which were included in the Virginia
submittal.

                                                    Table 1--Emissions of Pollutants in Tons per Year
                                                                          [TPY]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Pollutant                            NOX              VOCs            PM2.5             PM10             NH3              SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions (TPY)...................................       75,909.63        92,724.76         8,277.43        29,997.85         2,370.78        49,974.50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory is developed by the
incorporation of data from multiple sources. States were required to
develop and submit to EPA a triennial emissions inventory according to
the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) for all source
categories (i.e., point, area, nonroad mobile and on-road mobile). The
2002 emissions inventory was based on data developed by VDEQ and the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Government (MWCOG). The data were
developed according to current EPA emissions inventory guidance
``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations,'' August 2005.
EPA preliminarily agrees that the process used to develop this
emissions inventory is adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(3), the implementing regulations, and EPA guidance for emission
inventories. More information regarding the review of the base year
inventory can be found in the technical support document (TSD) titled
``2002 SIP Base Year Inventory'' that is located in this docket.

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory
portion of the SIP revision submitted by the

Commonwealth of Virginia through VDEQ on April 4, 2008. We have made
the determination that this action is consistent with section 110 of
the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.

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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 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).
    In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the PM2.5
2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the Virginia SIP, does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply
in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 18, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-18657 Filed 7-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28095-28096]
[DOCID:fr19my10-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0054]
RIN 2105-ADO4

Application To Renew Information Collection Request OMB No. 2105-
0551

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(Department).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests public participation in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval process for the renewal of an
existing OST information collection. In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) described below has been forwarded to OMB for
extension of the currently approved collection. The ICR describes the
nature of the information and the expected burden. OST published a
Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following collection of information on March 8, 2010.
The purpose of this notice is to allow the public an additional 30 days
from the date of this notice to submit comments to the recently
published application to renew ICR 2105-0551, ``Reporting Requirements
for Disability-Related Complaints.''

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by June 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-
2010-0551] through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W-12-140,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 (between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vinh Q. Nguyen or Blane A. Workie,
Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
202-366-9342 (Voice),<PHONE_NUMBER> (Fax), or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(E-mail). Arrangements to receive this document in
an alternative format may be made by contacting the above-named
individuals.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, require Federal
agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information
collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44
U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On March 8,
2010, OST published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting
comment on ICRs for which the agency was seeking OMB approval. See 75
FR 10547. OST

received no comments after issuing this notice. Accordingly, the
Department announces that these information collection activities have
been re-evaluated and certified under 5 CFR. 1320.5(a) and forwarded to
OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12(c).
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). OMB believes that the 30-day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure their full consideration. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). The summaries below describe the nature of
the ICR and the expected burden. The unchanged requirements are being
submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
    Title: Reporting Requirements for Disability-Related Complaints.
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0551.
    Type of Request: Renewal of currently approved Information
Collection Request.
    Background: On July 8, 2003, OST published a final rule that
requires most certificated U.S. and foreign air carriers operating to,
from and within the U.S. that conduct passenger-carrying service
utilizing large aircraft to record complaints that they receive
alleging inadequate accessibility or discrimination on the basis of
disability. The carriers must also categorize these complaints
according to the type of disability and nature of complaint, prepare a
summary report annually of the complaints received during the preceding
calendar year, submit the report to the Department's Aviation Consumer
Protection Division, and retain copies of correspondence and records of
action taken on the reported complaints for three years. The rule
requires carriers to submit their annual report via the World Wide Web
except if the carrier can demonstrate an undue burden in doing so and
receives permission from the Department to submit it in an alternative
manner. The first required report covering calendar year 2004 was due
to the Department on January 24, 2005, the second report covering
calendar year 2005 was due on January 30, 2006, the third report
covering calendar year 2006 was due on January 29, 2007, the fourth
report covering calendar year 2007 was due on January 28, 2008, and the
fifth report covering calendar year 2008 was due on January 26, 2009.
Subsequent reports of disability-related complaints received by
carriers are due each year on the last Monday in January for the prior
calendar year. On August 24, 2007, OMB approved information collection
of disability-related complaints, ``Reporting Requirements for
Disability-related Complaints'' through August 31, 2010. The
application to renew this information collection request was published
in the Federal Register on Monday, March 8, 2010 (75 FR 10547).
    Respondents: Certificated U.S. and foreign air carriers operating
to, from, and within the United States that conduct passenger-carrying
service with large aircraft.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 370.
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 185 hours.
    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of
the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. All comments will also become a matter of
public record.
    As noted earlier, OST published a Federal Register notice with a
60-day comment period for this ICR on Monday, March 8, 2010 (75 FR
10547).

    Issued in Washington, DC, 2010, under authority delegated in 49
CFR part 1.
Samuel Podberesky,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
[FR Doc. 2010-11959 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P