[Federal Register: December 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 244)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72256-72263]
[DOCID:fr20de07-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0519; FRL-8508-1]

Approval of Implementation Plans of Michigan: Clean Air
Interstate Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is conditionally approving a revision to the Michigan
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on July 16, 2007. This
revision incorporates provisions related to the implementation of EPA's
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005, and
subsequently revised on April 28, 2006, and December 13, 2006, and the
CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (CAIR FIP) concerning sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX) annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions for the state of Michigan,
promulgated on April 28, 2006, and subsequently revised December 13,
2006. EPA is not making any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is, to the
extent EPA approves Michigan's SIP revision, amending the appropriate
appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note that approval.
    The SIP revision that EPA is conditionally approving is an
abbreviated SIP revision that addresses: The applicability provisions
for the NOX ozone season trading program under the CAIR FIP
and supporting definitions of terms; the methodology to be used to
allocate NOX annual and ozone season NOX
allowances under the CAIR FIP and supporting definitions of terms; and
provisions for opt-in units under the CAIR FIP. Michigan will be
submitting additional SO2 rules in the future.

DATES: This rule is effective December 20, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0519. All documents in the electronic docket are
listed in the http://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
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Douglas Aburano, Environmental Engineer,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. Did Anyone Comment on the Proposed Conditional Approval?
III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIP?
IV. Analysis of Michigan's CAIR SIP Submittal
    A. Nature of Michigan's Submittal
    B. Summary of Michigan's Rule
    C. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations
    D. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs
    E. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NOX SIP Call
Sources
    F. NOX Allowance Allocations
    G. Allocation of NOX Allowances from the Compliance
Supplement Pool
    H. Individual Opt-in Units
    I. Conditions for Approval
V. Final Action
VI. When Is This Action Effective?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

CAIR SIP Approval

    EPA is conditionally approving a revision to Michigan's SIP,
submitted on July 16, 2007, that would modify the application of
certain provisions of the CAIR FIP concerning NOX annual and
NOX ozone season emissions. (As discussed below, this less
comprehensive CAIR SIP is termed an abbreviated SIP.) EPA proposed to
conditionally approve Michigan's submittal on September 12, 2007 (72 FR
52038). The CAIR SO2 FIP will remain in place unaffected.
Michigan is subject to the CAIR FIP that implements the CAIR
requirements by requiring certain electric generating units (EGUs) to
participate in the EPA-administered federal CAIR SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season cap-and-trade
programs. The SIP revision provides a methodology for allocating
NOX allowances for the NOX annual and
NOX ozone season trading programs. The CAIR FIP provides
that this methodology will be used to allocate NOX
allowances to sources in Michigan, instead of the federal allocation

methodology otherwise provided in the FIP. The SIP revision also
provides a methodology for allocating the compliance supplement pool
(CSP) in the CAIR NOX annual trading program, expands the
applicability provisions of the CAIR NOX ozone season
trading program, and allows for individual units not otherwise subject
to the CAIR trading programs to opt into such trading programs.
Consistent with the flexibility provided in the FIP, these provisions
will also be used to replace or supplement, as appropriate, the
corresponding provisions in the CAIR FIP for Michigan. EPA is not
making any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is, to the extent EPA approves
Michigan's SIP revision, amending the appropriate appendices in the
CAIR FIP trading rules to note that approval.
    EPA is conditionally approving this SIP revision, as opposed to
fully or completely approving it, because of several minor deficiencies
that Michigan must address. If Michigan has not met the conditions for
full approval within one year of the effective date of EPA's
conditional approval, this conditional approval will revert to a
disapproval, as of the deadline for meeting the conditions, without
further action required by EPA. In the event the conditional approval
reverts to a disapproval, EPA will publish a notice in the Federal
Register to inform the public. If Michigan does meet the conditions
necessary for a full approval, EPA will publish a Federal Register
notice finalizing the full approval.

II. Did Anyone Comment on the Proposed Conditional Approval?

    A 30-day comment period ended on October 12, 2007. EPA received
only one comment, which supported approving Michigan's submittal. EPA
did not receive any adverse comments during the comment period.

III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIP?

    CAIR establishes state-wide emission budgets for SO2 and
NOX, and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase
of NOX reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014,
while the first phase of SO2 reductions starts in 2010 and
continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both
NOX and SO2 starts in 2015 and continues
thereafter. CAIR requires states to implement the budgets by either:
(1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs; or, (2) adopting other control measures of the state's
choosing, and demonstrating that such control measures will result in
compliance with the applicable state SO2 and NOX
budgets.
    The May 12, 2005, and April 28, 2006, CAIR rules provide model
rules that states must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired)
if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.
    With two exceptions, only states that choose to meet the
requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are
allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One
exception is for states that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model
rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered
trading programs. The other exception is for states that include all
non-EGUs from their NOX SIP Call trading programs to include
those sources in their CAIR NOX ozone season trading
programs.

IV. Analysis of Michigan's CAIR SIP Submittal

A. Nature of Michigan's Submittal

    On July 16, 2007, Michigan submitted rules and supporting material
for addressing CAIR requirements. The Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) held a public hearing on these proposed
rules on April 2, 2007. MDEQ also provided a 30-day comment period that
ended on April 2, 2007.

B. Summary of Michigan's Rules

    Part 8 of Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules, entitled ``Emission
Limitations and Prohibitions--Oxides of Nitrogen,'' includes provisions
limiting the emissions of NOX from stationary sources in
Michigan. While Part 8 contains many sections, Michigan submitted only
a portion of them to address the CAIR requirements. Specifically,
Michigan submitted rules 802a, 803, 821 through 826, and 830 through
834 for federal approval.
     Rule 802a, entitled ``Adoption by reference,'' contains
adoption by reference language. Michigan has adopted necessary portions
of federal regulations including parts of: EPA's Acid Rain Program
(specifically 40 CFR 72.2 and 72.8), Continuous Emission Monitoring
Program (the entire 40 CFR part 75), NOX Model Rule
Compliance (40 CFR 96.54), and the CAIR SO2 and NOX FIP
rules (specifically 40 CFR 97.2, 97.102, 97.103, 97.104, 97.302,
97.303, 97.304, 97.180 to 97.188, 97.380 to 97.388).
     Rule 803, entitled ``Definitions,'' modifies the existing
Michigan definitions section to address the CAIR requirements. In order
to incorporate sources affected by the NOX SIP Call into the
CAIR NOX trading program, and also to accommodate Michigan's
NOX allocation methodology, the state has adopted
definitions that did not already exist in the CAIR FIP.
     Rule 821, entitled ``CAIR NOX ozone season and
annual trading programs; applicability determinations,'' contains
applicability criteria. Michigan has incorporated the CAIR
applicability from the CAIR FIP, has included the non-EGU sources from
the NOX SIP Call, and also allows sources of renewable
energy and renewable energy projects to receive NOX
allowances under the state's allocation methodology. Michigan has also
included in this section allocation adjustments based on EGU fuel type.
     Rule 822, entitled ``CAIR NOX ozone season
trading program; allowance allocation,'' establishes the NOX
budgets for the ozone season control period and establishes the
allocation methodology procedures for the ozone season. These
provisions describe how Michigan sources under the CAIR FIP, non-EGUs
formerly affected by the NOX SIP Call, and renewable energy
sources will be allocated NOX ozone season allowances.
     Rule 823, entitled ``New EGUs, new non-EGUs, and newly
affected EGUs under CAIR NOX ozone season trading program;
allowance allocations,'' establishes the provisions for a set-aside
ozone season control period allocation pool for new EGUs, new non-EGUs,
and newly affected EGUs (which were not included in the original
NOX SIP Call program due to geographic location).
     Rule 824, entitled ``CAIR NOX ozone season
trading program; hardship set-aside,'' establishes the provisions for a
hardship set-aside ozone season control period allocation pool to
address issues for small (i.e., employing fewer than 250 people)
businesses that can demonstrate that the controls required for this
source result in excessive or prohibitive costs for compliance.
     Rule 825, entitled ``CAIR NOX ozone season
trading program; renewable set-aside,'' establishes the provisions for
an ozone season control period allocation pool to be allocated to
renewable energy sources or renewable energy projects.
     Rule 826, entitled ``CAIR NOX ozone season
trading program; opt-in provisions,'' adopts by reference the ozone
season control period opt-in provisions under the federal CAIR FIP
rules, specifically 40 CFR 97.380 to 97.388.
     Rule 830, entitled ``CAIR NOX annual trading
program; allowance allocations,'' establishes the NOX

budgets for the annual control period, and establishes the allocation
methodology procedures for the annual control period.
     Rule 831, entitled ``New EGUs under CAIR NOX
annual trading program; allowance allocations,'' establishes the
provisions for a set-aside annual control period allocation pool for
new EGUs and the pool allocation methodology.
     Rule 832, entitled ``CAIR NOX annual trading
program; hardship set-aside,'' establishes the provisions for a set-
aside annual control period allocation pool to address issues for small
(i.e., employing fewer than 250 people) businesses that can demonstrate
that the required controls will result in excessive or prohibitive
compliance costs.
     Rule 833, entitled ``CAIR NOX annual trading
program; compliance supplement pool,'' establishes the provisions for
an annual control period compliance supplement pool that provides for
allocation for early reduction credit generation for existing sources,
and for the newly affected EGUs that were not in the original
NOX Budget Program that can demonstrate that compliance
during the 2009 control period would create an undue risk to the
reliability of the electrical supply.
     Rule 834, entitled ``Opt-in provisions under the CAIR
NOX annual trading program,'' adopts by reference the opt-in
provisions for the annual control period under the federal CAIR rules.
While Michigan has developed an abbreviated SIP, it differs from most
other states because of artifacts from the NOX SIP Call.
While many states are affected by the NOX SIP Call, Michigan
is one of only a few states that is not entirely covered under the
NOX SIP Call, due to a modeling boundary that EPA used in
atmospheric modeling of pollution sources and downwind effects. Only
those Michigan counties that fall, in their entirety, south of 44[deg]
latitude are affected by the NOX SIP Call. This is the
result of a decision in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. March
3, 2000) that established 44[deg] (a modeling boundary) as the
appropriate northern boundary for the NOX SIP Call. EPA
describes both the court decision and how it applies to Michigan in a
Federal Register notice dated April 21, 2004 (69 FR 21604, 21622-
21627). Although only a portion of Michigan is affected by the
NOX SIP Call, the entire state is affected by CAIR. In order
to transition from the NOX SIP Call trading program to the
CAIR ozone season trading program, the Michigan rules include
additional definitions and provisions to account for this geographic
discrepancy.
    An additional complication that Michigan has addressed in its rules
is that the CAIR requirements for sources of NOX begin in
2009. Under the NOX SIP Call, Michigan has already issued
NOX allowances through 2009. Because the 2009 NOX
SIP Call allowances have already been allocated to the Michigan
sources, Michigan included provisions acknowledging the 2009
NOX SIP Call allowances and provided that they will be
treated as CAIR NOX ozone season allowances issued for that
year. 2010 will be the first year in which Michigan sources (other than
CAIR opt-in units) will be allocated CAIR NOX ozone season
allowances that were not previously issued as NOX SIP Call
allowances.

C. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone season budgets were
developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data,
EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values,
which were multiplied by 0.15 lb/mmBtu for phase 1, and 0.125 lb/mmBtu
for phase 2, to obtain regional NOX budgets for 2009-2014
and for 2015 and thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the state
NOX annual and ozone season budgets from the regional
budgets using state heat input data adjusted by fuel factors.
    The CAIR FIP established the NOX budgets for Michigan as
65,304 tons for NOX annual emissions for 2009-2014; 54,420
tons for NOX annual emissions for 2015 and thereafter;
28,971 tons for NOX ozone season emissions for 2009-2014;
and 24,142 tons for NOX ozone season emissions for 2015 and
thereafter. Michigan's SIP revision, which we are conditionally
approving in today's action, does not affect these budgets, which are
total amounts of allowances available for allocation for each year
under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs under the CAIR FIP.
In short, the abbreviated SIP revision only affects allocations of
allowances under the established budgets.

D. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone-season FIP largely mirrors
the structure of the NOX SIP Call model trading rule in 40
CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the
NOX annual and ozone-season FIP are similar, there are some
differences. For example, the NOX annual FIP (but not the
NOX ozone season FIP) provides for a compliance supplement
pool (CSP), which is discussed below and under which allowances may be
awarded for early reductions of NOX annual emissions. As a
further example, the NOX ozone season FIP reflects the fact
that the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program replaces the
NOX SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and
is coordinated with the NOX SIP Call program. The
NOX ozone season FIP provides incentives for early emissions
reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NOX SIP Call
allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NOX ozone-
season trading program. In addition, states have the option of
continuing to meet their NOX SIP Call requirement by
participating in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program
and including all their NOX SIP Call trading sources in that
program.
    EPA used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading
programs in the CAIR FIP. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually
identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account
for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to
work together as integrated SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs.
    Michigan is subject to the CAIR FIP for ozone and PM2.5,
and the CAIR FIP trading programs for SO2, NOX
annual, and NOX ozone season apply to sources in Michigan.
Consistent with the flexibility it gives to states, the CAIR FIP
provides that states may submit abbreviated SIP revisions that will
replace or supplement, as appropriate, certain provisions of the CAIR
FIP trading programs. Michigan's July 16, 2007, submission is an
abbreviated SIP revision.

E. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NOX SIP Call Sources

    In general, the CAIR FIP trading programs apply to any stationary,
fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion
turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990, or
the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with
nameplate capacity of more than 25 megawatts of electricity (MWe)
producing electricity for sale.
    States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NOX
ozone season program only, those units in the state's NOX
SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR. EPA
advises states exercising this option to use provisions for
applicability that are substantively identical to the provisions in 40
CFR 96.304 and add the

applicability provisions in the state's NOX SIP Call trading
rule for non-EGUs to the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 in
order to include in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading
program all units required to be in the state's NOX SIP Call
trading program that are not already included under 40 CFR 96.304.
Under this option, the CAIR NOX ozone season program must
cover all large industrial boilers and combustion turbines, as well as
any small EGUs (i.e., units serving a generator with a nameplate
capacity of 25 MWe or less), that the state currently requires to be in
the NOX SIP Call trading program.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the CAIR FIP,
Michigan has chosen to expand the applicability provisions of the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program to include all non-EGUs in
the state's NOX SIP Call trading program. This increases the
overall NOX ozone season CAIR budget assigned to Michigan by
2,209 allowances.

F. NOX Allowance Allocations

    Under the NOX allowance allocation methodology in the
CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NOX annual and
ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have operated for
five years, based on heat input data from a three-year period that are
adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for
oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR
FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five
years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior
year emissions.
    The CAIR FIP provides states the flexibility to establish a
different NOX allowance allocation methodology that will be
used to allocate allowances to sources in the states if certain
requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units'
allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount
of allowances allocated for each control period. In adopting
alternative NOX allowance allocation methodologies, states
have flexibility with regard to:
    1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be
distributed for free or auctioned;
    2. The frequency of allocations;
    3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed,
for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal
output; and,
    4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the CAIR FIP,
Michigan has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX annual FIP concerning the allocation of NOX
annual allowances with its own methodology. Michigan has chosen to
distribute NOX annual allowances based upon a heat-input
based methodology for existing units, with set-asides for new sources
and for existing sources that submit acceptable demonstrations of
hardship to MDEQ.
    Michigan's Rule 830 allocates three years of NOX annual
allowances at a time to existing sources on a heat input basis. This
begins in 2007 for the annual control periods of 2009, 2010 and 2011.
By October 31, 2008, Michigan will submit to EPA allocations for the
annual control periods of 2012, 2013 and 2014. By October 31, 2011,
and, thereafter, each October 31 of every third year, Michigan will
submit to EPA allocations for the subsequent three year period.
    Under Michigan Rule 831, the new source set-aside for new EGUs is
1,000 tons per year for years 2009-2011, and 1,400 tons per year for
years 2012 and thereafter. Allowances for the first annual control
period under the new source set-aside are allocated based on 70 percent
of a unit's projected emissions. After the first annual control period,
new EGUs can request allowances equal to (the number of megawatt hours
operated during the previous control period divided by 2,000 lb/ton),
multiplied by (1.0 lb NOX/megawatt hours). Once a unit has
five years of operating data, it is no longer considered a ``new'' unit
and will be allocated allowances as an existing source under Rule 830.
    Michigan Rule 832 establishes a hardship set-aside of 1,200
allowances per year for existing sources. Existing sources with fewer
than 250 employees that are able to submit a demonstration to Michigan
that the control level required by CAIR will result in excessive or
prohibitive compliance costs can request allowances from this set-aside
pool.
    Michigan Rule 833 establishes a compliance supplement pool of 6,491
allowances for existing EGUs and a pool for newly-affected EGUs of
1,856 allowances. For existing EGUs, allowances can be requested if
units have made early reductions during calendar year 2007 and 2008. A
newly affected EGU can request hardship allowances if it can
demonstrate that compliance with CAIR will result in hardship.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the CAIR FIP,
Michigan has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX ozone season FIP concerning allowance allocations with
its own methodology. Michigan has chosen to distribute NOX
ozone season allowances using a heat input-based methodology for
existing units, with set-asides for new sources, renewable energy
sources, and existing sources that submit acceptable demonstrations of
hardship to MDEQ.
    Michigan's Rule 822 establishes trading budgets for existing EGUs,
new EGUs, newly affected EGUs, existing non-EGUs, renewable sources and
hardship set-asides. Rule 822 also provides for allocation of three
years of NOX ozone season control period allowances at a
time to existing EGUs and existing non-EGUs on a heat input basis. This
begins in 2007 for the ozone season control periods of 2010 and 2011.
By October 31, 2008, Michigan will submit to EPA allocations for the
ozone control periods of 2012, 2013 and 2014. By October 31, 2011, and,
thereafter, by each October 31 of the year that is three years after
the last year of allocation submittal, Michigan will submit the next
three years of ozone control period allocations to EPA. Allowances for
the 2009 ozone control period are the same as were allocated under the
NOX SIP Call Budget Trading Program.
    Rule 823 establishes a set-aside pool for new EGUs, new non-EGUs
and newly affected EGUs. Rule 823 also includes the directions for how
sources can apply for the allowances in this set-aside. Most EGUs were
allocated NOX allowances for the 2009 ozone control period
under the NOX SIP Call. These allowances are now being
designated as CAIR NOX ozone season allowances issued for
the 2009 ozone control period. Newly affected EGUs that were not
subject to the NOX SIP Call never were allocated 2009 ozone
control period allowances under the NOX SIP Call, but will
need allowances to comply with CAIR in 2009. Therefore, they are being
allowed to request allowances from this set-aside. Newly affected
sources can request allowances based on their historic heat input. For
the first ozone season control period of operation, new EGUs and new
non-EGUs can request allowances from this set-aside based on predicted
hours of operation. For the four ozone control periods after the first
ozone control period of operation, new EGUs may request allowances
based on the actual number of megawatt hours of electricity generated
during the ozone control period immediately preceding the request.
After a new EGU has five ozone control periods of operating data, it is
no longer considered a ``new'' EGU and is allocated ozone control
period allowances per the requirements found in Rule 822.

    Rule 824 creates an annual hardship set-aside pool of 650
allowances beginning in 2010. Both existing EGUs and non-EGUs can
request allowances from this pool if the company making the request
employs fewer than 250 people and can make a demonstration of financial
hardship. The number of allowances a source can request will be based
on historical heat input.
    Rule 825 establishes a set-aside of 200 allowances per year for
renewable units. Initially, renewable units can request allowances from
this set-aside based on the nameplate capacity of the unit and the
predicted hours of operation during the ozone control period. After a
renewable unit has been in operation for one ozone control period, the
unit can request allowances based on the previous ozone season control
period's actual megawatt hours. Renewable units may only request
allowances for three consecutive ozone seasons.

G. Allocation of NOX Allowances From the Compliance Supplement Pool

    The CSP provides an incentive for early reductions in
NOX annual emissions. The CSP consists of 200,000 CAIR
NOX annual allowances of vintage 2009 for the entire CAIR
region, and a state's share of the CSP is based upon the state's share
of the projected emission reductions under CAIR. States may distribute
CSP allowances, one allowance for each ton of early reduction, to
sources that make NOX reductions during 2007 or 2008 beyond
what is required by any applicable state or federal emission
limitation. States also may distribute CSP allowances based upon a
demonstration of need for an extension of the 2009 deadline for
implementing emission controls.
    The CAIR NOX annual FIP establishes specific
methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may choose an
allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to allocate
CSP allowances to sources in those states.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the FIP,
Michigan has chosen to modify the provisions of the CAIR NOX
annual FIP concerning the allocation of allowances from the CSP.
Michigan Rule 833 establishes an annual compliance supplement pool of
6,491 allowances for existing EGUs and an annual pool for newly-
affected EGUs of 1,856 allowances. Existing EGUs can request allowances
if the units have made early reductions during calendar years 2007 and
2008. Newly affected EGUs can request hardship allowances if a
demonstration of hardship can be made.

H. Individual Opt-in Units

    The opt-in provisions allow for certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers,
combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices)
that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program
to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading
program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading
programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a
unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part
75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading
program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a
CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated
allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions
monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the
CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two
methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one
methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second
methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the
owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015.
    States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. The
rules for each of the CAIR FIP trading programs include opt-in
provisions that are essentially the same as those in the respective
CAIR SIP model rules, except that the CAIR FIP opt-in provisions become
effective in a state only if the state's abbreviated SIP revision
adopts the opt-in provisions. The state may adopt the opt-in provisions
entirely or may adopt them but exclude one of the allowance allocation
methodologies. The state also has the option of not adopting any opt-in
provisions in the abbreviated SIP revision and thereby providing for
the CAIR FIP trading program to be implemented in the state without the
ability for units to opt into the program.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the FIP,
Michigan has chosen to allow non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to
participate in the CAIR NOX annual trading program. Michigan
has adopted by reference the FIP language regarding opt-ins. Rule 802a
incorporates 40 CFR 97.180 to 97.188 by reference, and Rule 834 makes
them applicable to units in the State.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the FIP,
Michigan has chosen to permit non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to
participate in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program.
Michigan has adopted by reference the FIP language regarding opt-ins.
Rule 802a incorporates 40 CFR 97.380 to 97.388 by reference, and Rule
826 makes them applicable to units in the State.

I. Conditions for Approval

    EPA notes that it has identified several minor deficiencies that
are necessary to correct in Michigan's rules. These minor deficiencies
are as follows:
    1. In rule 803(3), Michigan needs to add a definition for
``commence operation.'' This definition, and the revised definition of
``commence commercial operation,'' identified below, are necessary to
take account of NOX SIP Call units brought into the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program that do not generate
electricity for sale and to ensure that they have appropriate deadlines
for certification of monitoring systems under 40 CFR part 97.
    2. In rule 803(3)(c), Michigan needs to revise the definition for
``commence commercial operation,'' as described in Condition 1, above.
    3. In rule 803(3)(d)(ii), Michigan needs to revise the definition
of ``electric generating unit'' or ``EGU.'' EPA interprets Michigan's
current rule 803 as properly including in the CAIR NOX ozone
season trading program all EGUs in Michigan that were subject to the
NOX SIP Call trading program. Michigan must revise the rule
to clarify that all EGUs in Michigan that were subject to the
NOX SIP Call trading program are included in the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program.
    4. In rule 823(5)(c), Michigan needs to reference ``subrule (1)(a),
(b), (c), and (d)'' of the rule. While EPA interprets Michigan's
current rule as limiting the new unit set-aside allocations to the
amount of allowances in the set-aside, Michigan must revise this
provision to clarify the mechanism for implementing this limitation on
such allocations.
    These minor deficiencies are described in detail in a July 25, 2007
technical support document in the docket for this rulemaking. By a
letter dated August 15, 2007, Michigan committed to making final and
effective revisions to its rules by correcting these deficiencies as
discussed above by July 20, 2008.
    Under section 110(k)(4) of the Clean Air Act, EPA may conditionally
approve a SIP revision based on a commitment from the state to adopt
specific enforceable measures by a date certain that is no more than
one year from the date of conditional approval. In this action, we are
approving the SIP

revision that Michigan has submitted on the condition that the minor
deficiencies in the SIP revision are corrected, as discussed above, by
the date referenced in Michigan's letter, i.e., by July 20, 2008. If
this condition is not met within one year of the effective date of
final rulemaking, the conditional approval will automatically revert to
a disapproval--as of the deadline for meeting the conditions--without
further action from the EPA. EPA will publish a notice in the Federal
Register informing the public of the disapproval. In the event the
conditional approval automatically reverts to a disapproval, the
validity of allocations made under the SIP revision (including the
treatment of previously allocated 2009 NOX SIP Call
allowances as 2009 CAIR ozone season allowances) before the date of
such reversion to disapproval will not be affected. If Michigan submits
final and effective rule revisions correcting the deficiencies,
discussed above, within one year from this conditional approval being
final and effective, EPA will publish in the Federal Register a notice
to acknowledge this and to convert the conditional approval to a full
approval.

V. Final Action

    EPA is conditionally approving Michigan's abbreviated CAIR SIP
revision submitted on July 16, 2007. Michigan is covered by the CAIR
FIP, which requires participation in the EPA-administered CAIR FIP cap-
and-trade programs for SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions. Under this abbreviated SIP
revision, and consistent with the flexibility given to states in the
FIP, Michigan adopts provisions for allocating allowances under the
CAIR FIP NOX annual and ozone season trading programs. In
addition, Michigan adopts in the abbreviated SIP revision provisions
that establish a methodology for allocating allowances in the CSP,
expand the applicability provisions for the CAIR FIP NOX
ozone season trading program, and allow for individual non-EGUs to opt
into the CAIR FIP NOX annual and NOX ozone season
cap-and-trade programs. As provided for in the CAIR FIP, these
provisions in the abbreviated SIP revision will replace or supplement
the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIP in Michigan. The
abbreviated SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR
51.123(p) and (ee), with regard to NOX annual and
NOX ozone season emissions. EPA is not making any changes to
the CAIR FIP, but is, to the extent EPA approves Michigan's SIP
revision, amending the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading
rules simply to note that approval.

VI. When Is This Action Effective?

    EPA finds that there is good cause for this approval to become
effective on December 20, 2007, because a delayed effective date is
unnecessary due to the nature of the approval, which allows the State
to make allocations under its CAIR rules. The expedited effective date
for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which
provides that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves
a restriction'' and section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an
effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the
rule.''
    CAIR SIP approvals relieve states and CAIR sources within states
from being subject to allowance allocation provisions in the CAIR FIPs
that otherwise would apply to them, allowing states to make their own
allowance allocations based on their SIP-approved state rule. The
relief from these obligations is sufficient reason to allow an
expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In
addition, Michigan's relief from these obligations provides good cause
to make this rule effective December 20, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5
U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust
their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where,
as here, the final rule relieves obligations rather than imposes
obligations, affected parties, such as the State of Michigan and CAIR
sources within the State, do not need time to adjust and prepare before
the rule takes effect.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and would
impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this action approves pre-existing requirements under state law and
would not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it would
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it would not have substantial direct effects on
the states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a federal standard and to amend the appropriate appendices
in the CAIR FIP trading rules to note that approval. It does not alter
the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it would approve a state rule implementing a federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule would not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric
utilities, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 97

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric
utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.

    Dated: December 7, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 97 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart X--Michigan

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (c) entitled ``EPA--
Approved Michigan Regulations'' is amended by revising an entry in Part
8 ``R 336.1803'' and adding entries in Part 8 ``R 336.1802a'', ``R
336.1821 through R 336.1826'', and ``R 336.1830 through 336.1834'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
     Michigan citation                  Title             effective     EPA approval date          Comments
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                        Part 8. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions--Oxides of Nitrogen

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.1802a................  Adoption by reference.....      6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       the document begins].
R 336.1803.................  Definitions...............      6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       the document begins].
R 336.1821.................  CAIR NOX ozone and annual       6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                              trading programs;                        page number where
                              applicability                            the document begins].
                              determinations.
R 336.1822.................  CAIR NOX ozone season           6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                              trading program;                         page number where
                              allowance allocations.                   the document begins].
R 336.1823.................  New EGUs, new non-EGUs,         6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                              and newly affected EGUs                  page number where
                              under CAIR NOX ozone                     the document begins].
                              season trading program;
                              allowance allocations.
R 336.1824.................  CAIR NOX ozone season           6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                              trading program; hardship                page number where
                              set-aside.                               the document begins].
R 336.1825.................  CAIR NOX ozone season           6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                              trading program;                         page number where
                              renewable set-aside.                     the document begins].
R 336.1826.................  CAIR NOX ozone season           6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                              trading program; opt-in                  page number where
                              provisions.                              the document begins].
R 336.1830.................  CAIR NOX annual trading         6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                              program; allowance                       page number where
                              allocations.                             the document begins].
R 336.1831.................  New EGUs under CAIR NOX         6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                              annual trading program;                  page number where
                              allowance allocations.                   the document begins].
R 336.1832.................  CAIR NOX annual trading         6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                              program; hardship set-                   page number where
                              aside.                                   the document begins].
R 336.1833.................  CAIR NOX annual trading         6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                              program; compliance                      page number where
                              supplement pool.                         the document begins].
R 336.1834.................  Opt-in provisions under         6/25/07  12/20/07, [Insert
                              the CAIR NOX annual                      page number where
                              trading program.                         the document begins].

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

* * * * *

PART 97--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7601, and 7651, et
seq.

0
4. Appendix A to Subpart EE is amended by adding the entry for
``Michigan'' in alphabetical order under paragraphs 1. and 2. to read
as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart EE of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations

* * * * *
    1. * * *

Michigan

    2. * * *

Michigan

* * * * *

0
5. Appendix A to Subpart II is amended by adding the entry for
``Michigan'' in alphabetical order under paragraphs 1. and 2. to read
as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart II of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning CAIR NOX Opt-In
Units

* * * * *
    1. * * *

Michigan

    2. * * *

Michigan

* * * * *

0
6. Appendix A to Subpart AAAA is amended by adding the entry for
``Michigan'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart AAAA of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Applicability

* * * * *

Michigan

* * * * *

0
7. Appendix A to Subpart EEEE is amended by adding the entry for
``Michigan'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart EEEE of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations

* * * * *

Michigan

* * * * *

0
8. Appendix A to Subpart IIII is amended by adding the entry for
``Michigan'' in alphabetical order under paragraphs 1. and 2. to read
as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart IIII of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning CAIR NOX Ozone
Season Opt-In Units

* * * * *
    1. * * *

Michigan

    2. * * *

Michigan

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-24513 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47324]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17169]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0583; FRL-9949-23-Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District, Riverside County Air Pollution Control
District, and San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve rescissions from the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management
District (MDAQMD), Riverside County Air Pollution Control District
(RCAPCD), and San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District
(SBCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
These revisions concern superseded New Source Review (NSR) rules. We
are proposing to approve the rescission of rules under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by August 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0583 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3407<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses the rescission of
RCAPCD Rules 213, 213.1, and 213.2 and SBCAPCD Rules 213, 213.1, and
213.2 from the Mojave Desert portion of the California SIP. In the
Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are
approving the rescission of these local rules in a direct final action
without prior proposal because we believe this SIP revision is not
controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish
a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments
in subsequent action based on this proposed rule.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: June 24, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-17169 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36635-36638]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14623]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0394; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-015-AD;
Amendment 39-17875; AD 2014-13-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
(Airbus Helicopters) (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH)
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus
Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters with a certain Goodrich
rescue hoist damper unit (damper unit) installed. This AD requires
repairing or replacing the damper unit or deactivating the rescue
hoist. This AD is prompted by a report of an uncommanded detachment of
a damper unit from the cable. These actions are intended to prevent
loss of an external load or person from the helicopter hoist and injury
to persons being lifted by the hoist.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 15, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of July 15, 2014.
    We must receive comments on this AD by August 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated by reference service information,
the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus
Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Schwab, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued AD No. 2014-0057, dated March 6, 2014, and
corrected March 7, 2014 (AD 2014-0057), to correct an unsafe condition
for Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. EASA advises
that a rescue hoist damper unit detached from the cable when the hoist
damper was lifted by hand with no load attached. EASA further advises
that an investigation revealed the retaining ring inside the damper
unit was not located in the proper position, and that this displacement
of the retaining ring may have occurred as a maintenance error or as a
result of interference with the bonding strap unit during normal use.
EASA further states that this condition could lead to the detachment of
an external load or person from the helicopter hoist, possibly
resulting in personal injury or injury to persons on the ground.
    To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2014-0057, which
supersedes AD No. 2014-0046-E, dated February 27, 2014, and which
requires replacing Goodrich rescue hoist damper unit/rescue winch
damper, part number (P/N) 44307-480, P/N 44307-480-1, or P/N 44307-480-
2, or deactivating the rescue hoist. AD 2014-0057 also requires
modifying the damper unit's bonding strap and replacing the retaining
ring, which allows reactivation of the rescue hoist. Lastly, AD 2014-
0057 implements a recurring 100 hoist-cycle inspection of the retaining
ring for correct installation.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type
design.

Related Service Information

    Airbus Helicopters has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No.
ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-85A-041, Revision 2, dated March 4, 2014, which
describes procedures for modifying the bonding strap unit, installing
an improved retaining ring, and inspecting the retaining ring.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, before the next hoist operation, either repairing
the hoist damper unit by following specified portions of the service
information, replacing the hoist damper unit with a unit that has been
repaired by following specified portions of the service information, or
deactivating the rescue hoist.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires a 100 hoist-cycle repetitive inspection, while
this AD does not. We plan to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to
give the public an opportunity to comment on those long-term
requirements.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. If final action is
later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 118 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in
order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour,
repairing the hoist damper unit will require 5 work-hours, and required
parts will cost $4, for a cost per helicopter of $429. Replacing the
hoist damper unit will require 1 work-hour, and required parts will
cost $8,715, for a cost per helicopter of $8,800. Deactivating the
rescue hoist will require .5 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of
$43.
    According to Airbus Helicopters' service information, some of the
costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty
coverage by Airbus Helicopters. Accordingly, we have included all costs
in our cost estimate.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments before adopting these
AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to
correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk
to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to
adopting this rule because the required corrective actions must be done
before the next hoist operation.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to
the public interest and that good cause exists for making this
amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2014-13-01 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters)
(Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH): Amendment 39-17875; Docket
No. FAA-2014-0394; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-015-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 C-2
helicopters with a Goodrich hoist damper unit, part number (P/N)
44307-480, P/N 44307-480-1, or P/N 44307-480-2, installed,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as uncommanded detachment
of the external hoist damper unit, which could result in loss of an
external load or person from the hoist, resulting in injury to
persons being lifted by the hoist.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 15, 2014.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Before the next hoist operation, comply with paragraph (e)(1),
(e)(2), or (e)(3) of this AD:
    (1) Repair and re-identify each hoist damper unit in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.1, of Airbus
Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin ASB No. MBB-BK117 C-2-
85A-041, Revision 2, dated March 4, 2014; or
    (2) Replace each hoist damper unit with a unit that has been
repaired as required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD; or
    (3) Deactivate the rescue hoist system.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: George Schwab, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2014-0057, dated March 6, 2014, and corrected
March 7, 2014. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2014-0394.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2500: Cabin
Equipment Furnishings.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB
MBB-BK117 C-2-85A-041, Revision 2, dated March 4, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive,
Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 13, 2014.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-14623 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Response # 101: One commenter indicated that EPA grossly underestimated the time required for data compilation and reporting and suggested that it is at least two times greater than what EPA estimated in the Paperwork Reduction Analysis. This commenter did not provide additional comment to explain specifically how or why the EPA estimate was incorrect not did they indicate which particular activities should be adjusted. In regards to the consideration of stocks under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA believes that there will not be a significant adverse economic impact on any small entities as a result of today's action. The commenter did not specify why there would be a significant adverse economic impact so EPA is forced to conclude that the commenter must believe regulation of the stocks would devalue the material and thus cause economic harm to distributors, some of which may be small entities although again, the commenter did not specify. As described elsewhere in this document, EPA notes that there are several markets for methyl bromide stocks ( export to developing countries and export to meet the critical use demands of developed countries) which are all sizable and important markets. Therefore, EPA does not understand why the value of stocks would be greatly diminished given the number of legal markets and does not believe there would be a significant adverse impact to small entities. 95 Even if there were a reduction in value of stocks on the unrestricted market because of a glut of material that had been previously held for CUE users now becoming available, economic theory would suggest that the corresponding scarcity of stocks in the critical use market would lead to the ability to charge a price premium in the exemption market, thus resulting in no significant adverse economic impact. This would hold true unless the amount of stocks authorized for sale into the critical use market were equivalent to present demand, in which case there would not be a scarcity and ensuing premium. In this scenario there would clearly not be a significant adverse economic impact since the regulatory limit on sale of stocks for critical uses would reflect the amount that would have been sold into that market in the absence of regulation. Thus, EPA does not believe there would be a significant adverse economic impact to small entities under today's rule.

  One commenter believes that the proposed rule is too complex and can easily be simplified by focusing control on methyl bromide manufacturers and importers. By doing so, this commenter suggests that EPA can streamline the process to issue the necessary final rule by January 1, 2005. [ 0220]

Response # 102: EPA is focusing on manufacturers and importers in today's rule in part to simplify the regulatory requirements.

  Three commenters note that the proposed rule is one of the most confusing and complex rules that he has ever reviewed from a federal agency [ 0202, 0203, 0206].

Response # 103: EPA attempted to create a clear proposed rule. In addition, the Agency gave several presentations to the stakeholder community on the proposal, and responded to many phone calls and emails with questions on the proposal. EPA hopes that the commenter finds the final rule to be clearer.

  One commenter noted that his organization has spent many hours and dollars to compile the information necessary to file their CUE application, to participate in numerous USEPA and user group meetings, and to provide additional details when requested. This commenter characterizes the process as " arduous and extremely involved." The commenter urges EPA to establish and make public its final rule in the most expeditious manner [ 0205].

Response # 104: EPA is making the final rule public as expeditiously as possible also mindful of the need to carefully consider the full range of comments on the proposed rule.

  One commenter believes that it would not require much time or overburden the producers and distributors to have CUAs since EPA recently required these entities to produce inventory records. This commenter feels that it would not be a burden for producers and their distributors to produce sales records for the final user [ 0242]. 96 Response # 105: EPA concurs that it requires minimal additional burden to implement the CUA system. However if EPA were to require producers and importers to produce sales records for each sale to an approved critical user, it would likely double the estimated burden hours associated with today's rule.

  Three commenters commented that, as small family farms, they do not have the resources or time to file for critical use exemptions, and that since production of their crop was so limited, there is not a group that could file for them. A third commenter representing a small family farm noted that they have spent considerable money to participate in a CUE application, and encouraged EPA to develop a final rule that is easy to understand, fair to growers and the horticultural industry, and takes into account unsuccessful efforts to find alternatives [ 0254, 0253, 0232].

Response # 106: EPA recognizes that it takes time and money to apply for an exemption.

  One commenter notes that it prepared petitions for critical use exemptions in several sectors, and that the initial petitions submitted in 2002 included over 8,000 pages of information and required over 3,000 hours to produce. Subsequent petitions for 2003 and 2004 resulted in additional research and documentation and included over 3,000 pages in 2003 and 1,800 in 2004. This commenter expressed continued concerns over EPA's perceived push to make the regulatory framework for methyl bromide to match the ones currently in place for manufacturing industries dealing with substances regulated under the CAA. The commenter notes that the complex distribution and delivery systems for methyl bromide were not designed with the complexities of having to deal with three different categories of methyl bromide in mind, as envisioned in the rule [ 0223].

Response # 107: EPA recognizes that the application for an exemption requires time and money to complete as does the continuing demonstration of research for alternatives. EPA has attempted to relieve burden by requiring less information for subsequent applications than for the initial application. EPA does in fact recognize that methyl bromide is different from other ozone depleting chemicals that are used in manufacturing settings and has addressed this point elsewhere in this document. Although there may be some additional complexity using three categories of methyl bromide as envisioned under the proposed rule, EPA believes that with today's rule it is implementing the least burdensome, most streamlined regulation possible to ensure compliance with our Protocol obligations. 97 16. Summary of Comments Relating to NEED FOR AN EXPORT MECHANISM Commenter Organization Document ID No Courtney M. Price et al. American Chemistry Council   Methyl Bromide Industry Panel 0245 Ann M. Oxford Albemarle Corporation 0226   Two commenters believe that it is important to have a mechanism for permitting production of critical use methyl bromide for export after January 1, 2005. Such a mechanism will ensure that an adequate supply of methyl bromide can be produced to meet critical use needs in other countries, since the U. S. is the world's largest supplier of methyl bromide. These commenters note that, based on the current provisions of the proposed rule, producers would have to expend CUAs that should be expended to meet critical use needs in the U. S. in order to meet critical uses outside the U. S [ 0245, 0226].

Response # 108: EPA agrees that the regulation should include a mechanism for export to developed countries to meet their CUE. In the NPRM, EPA pointed out that the U. S. is the world's largest supplier of methyl bromide. EPA noted, for example, that " a catastrophe in the U. S. would not only affect U. S. users but would affect those users who have authorized critical uses in developed countries as well as the users in developing countries who have not yet phased out methyl bromide." 69 FR 52374. Thus, EPA raised the issue of ensuring an adequate supply of methyl bromide to meet critical uses in other developed countries. In today's action, the regulatory text includes provisions that permit methyl bromide production explicitly and solely to meet the needs of other countries that have been authorized critical use exemptions for the specific control period. The producers will be required to report quarterly on quantities produced solely for export to meet orders placed by other countries with authorized critical needs. 98 17. Summary of Comments Relating to the RULEMAKING AND REGULATORY PROCESS Commenter Organization Document ID No David Doniger Natural Resources Defense Council 0133, 0140 DD, 0246 Edward M. Ruckert Crop Protection Coalition 0219   Two comments were received on the rulemaking and regulatory process [ 0133, 0140 DD, 0246, 0219].

  One commenter believes that the proposed rule does not fully implement the requirements of the CAA and the Montreal Protocol in that the rule would allow substantially higher levels of methyl bromide use, production, and consumption in 2005 than the Act and the Protocol permit. This commenter notes that, under Section 614( b) of the Act, the Act incorporates the Protocol as minimum requirements, and that, under Section 604( d)( 6), EPA makes critical use exemptions " to the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol." This commenter also notes that the proposed rule correctly observes that EPA must comply with the terms of both Article 2h of the Montreal Protocol and the related Decisions of the Parties pursuant to that article, including Decision IX/ 6 and Decision Ex. I/ 3. This commenter also asserts that Section 604( d)( 6) creates a domestic procedural requirement beyond the procedures of the Protocol, which EPA has consistently acknowledged. This commenter believes that the rulemaking requirement has two critical implications. First, none of the government's prior factual assertions about critical use needs has any status yet under the CAA, because there has not yet been a rulemaking opportunity to comment on the basis for those factual assertions and to receive a reasoned response to such comments. The commenter asserts that this specifically means that EPA cannot rely on any factual assertions made in its prior critical use nominations to the Protocol Parties. All factual assertions relevant to critical use exemptions must be presented now, with their supporting data, and made available for comment.

Second, according to the commenter, EPA must make its exemption decisions based on up to date information. The rulemaking for 2005 exemptions takes place now, and as such, EPA cannot rely on factual assertions made two or three years ago without taking into account relevant data that has been made available since. The need for current information is also emphasized in paragraph 5 of Decision Ex. I/ 3, which requires each country to apply the Decision IX/ 6 criteria at the time it conducts its domestic regulatory process. Thus, this commenter concludes that the quantities included in Annex II of Decision Ex. I/ 3 are upper limits on the amount of methyl bromide that EPA may authorize as critical uses in 2005, and on the amount that EPA may authorize to be produced or consumed in 2005. To determine what lesser amounts are justified, EPA must apply the criteria of Decision IX/ 6 to current facts. 99 This commenter also asserts that the current proposed rule does not comply with Section 307( d)( 3), on the ground that EPA's passive referencing of the documents in the docket and asking for comment does not satisfy this requirement. Specifically, the commenter believes that the proposed rule provides no discussion of key requirements of Decision IX/ 6 related to the amount of use to be deemed critical. Under Decision IX/ 6 paragraph ( 1)( a) and Decision Ex. I/ 3 paragraph 5, this commenter asserts that EPA must determine in this rulemaking that lack of availability would result in " a significant market disruption" and that " there are no technical and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available." This commenter believes that EPA has not only failed to address these issues, but also cannot make these findings based on up to date information. This commenter's organization was supplied FOIA data that show, according to the commenter, that the total use of methyl bromide in 2003 was already substantially lower than the amount proposed as critical for 2005. This commenter questions how EPA can propose that 8,942 metric tons are critical in 2005, when the total used by farmers, millers, and other users in 2003 was 1,268 tons lower than this amount. The commenter notes that the proposed rule does not discuss the data released in the FOIA response, and that although EPA officials have referred to data that allegedly conflicts with the FOIA data, EPA has never explained that contention in any detail and has claimed that some the alternative data are confidential. This commenter believes that EPA owes the public a statement of basis and purpose meeting the requirements of § 307( d)( 3), including the factual basis and methodology, for the proposed critical use amount for 2005, in time for interested parties to comment meaningfully.

Response # 109: EPA addressed the concerns relating to use data obtained under FOIA in section two of this document. Section 307( d) of the CAA states that a notice of proposed rulemaking " shall be accompanied by a statement of its basis and purpose," which shall include " the factual data on which the proposed rule is based" as well as " the methodology used in obtaining the data and in analyzing the data." In the NPRM, EPA stated that the U. S. nominations and responses to questions posed by MBTOC provide the technical basis for the 2005 critical use level, as determined both domestically and by the Parties. The NPRM also described the critical use process, including the submission of information by CUE applicants and the criteria used in reviewing the information. The details of the review, including the consideration of the criteria mentioned by the commenter, are reflected in the nomination and MBTOC responses, which were docketed prior to the publication of the proposed rule. Thus, EPA provided a statement of the basis for the proposed critical use level in accordance with section 307( d) and interested parties had an opportunity to comment. EPA noted in the NPRM that the Agency " does not have additional information to indicate that it should adjust the amounts authorized by the Parties, but seeks comments on whether additional research and data is available with respect to the deployment of alternatives, the adoption of emission reduction technologies, and the other criteria listed in Decision IX/ 6." 69 FR 52373. Comments recommending adjustments are discussed in Section I. a. of this 100 document. As explained in that section, EPA did not receive information to indicate it should adjust the amounts authorized by the Parties. EPA considered information submitted by manufacturers of alternatives in preparation of the U. S. nomination. Hence these entities have had two points of entry into the process the first to provide information to the Agency on their alternatives when the nomination was developed and the second to provide comments to the Agency on our assessment through the notice and comment rulemaking. Similarly, applicants for an exemption have had two points of entry as well. This second point of entry has been particularly helpful to the Agency to identify any circumstances that have changed since the time the nominations were developed, such as the registration of an alternative or the de listing of a previously available alternative.

  A coalition representing national, regional, and local agricultural organizations asserts that the CAA's definition of the Montreal Protocol does not make any reference to " Decisions," and thus " Decisions" are not binding on the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. This commenter believes that there is generally no meaningful or objective review of a " Decision" by the Parties, and that " Decisions" may be motivated by factors other than science, like the attempt by a number of countries to make life difficult for the United States. As a result, this commenter finds that the U. S. must only abide by the text in the actual Protocol text, as well as adjustments and amendments, in the critical use exemption process. [ 0219]

Response # 110: See response in section two of this document regarding " decisions" of the Protocol.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7171-7172]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02621]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0656; FRL--9554-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners
(EPA ICR Number 0997.13, OMB Control Number 2060-0079), to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the
ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2022. Public
comments were previously requested, via the Federal Register, on
February 8, 2021 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for
an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the
ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the
public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 10,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0656, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method)
or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection

Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at:
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person, at the EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum
Dry Cleaners (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ) apply to the following
existing and new facilities located at a petroleum dry cleaning plant
with a total manufacturers' rated dryer capacity equal to or greater
than 38 kilograms (84 pounds): Petroleum solvent dry cleaning dryers,
washers, filters, stills, and settling tanks. In general, NSPS
standards require initial notification reports, performance tests, and
periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities.
They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are generally
considered essential in determining compliance, and are required of all
affected facilities subject to NSPS. For this source category, only
recordkeeping and initial notifications and reports are considered
essential in determining compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Petroleum dry cleaners.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart JJJ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially.
    Total estimated burden: 90 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $11,000 (per year), which includes $0 in
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease in the burden in this
ICR in comparison to the previous ICR. This decrease is not due to any
program changes. There is a decrease in the total burden hours from the
most-recently approved ICR because of a decrease in the number of
sources subject to these standards. This ICR incorporates more accurate
estimates of existing sources based on consultations with EPA's Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards and a review of affected
facilities in the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO) database and reflects decline within the industry as dry
cleaning facilities have moved to reduce use of petroleum solvents and
incorporate newer technologies. The burden for this rule continues to
apply only for one-time reporting requirements for new sources. This
ICR reduces the number of new sources anticipated and conservatively
estimates burden for one new affected facility per year. The overall
result is a decrease in burden.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-02621 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P