INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST UPDATE FOR THE 40 CFR PART 64 COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING PROGRAM Agency Form No. EPA ICR 1663.03 ( For OMB Review)

Prepared by:

Daniel Charles Mussatti, Senior Economist United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division Innovative Strategies and Economics Group MD 15 Research Triangle Park, NC 27701 March 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Part 64 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR), as defined in the Compliance Assurance Monitoring ( CAM) Rule, requires monitoring, compliance certification, periodic reporting, and record keeping information collections by owners and operators of title V sources with controlled pollutant specific emissions units that have a pre control potential to emit major amounts of regulated air pollutants. CAM identifies two categories of emission units:

$ " Large" pollutant specific emission units: units that have the potential to emit, with controls, the applicable regulated air pollutant in an amount equal to or greater than the amount required for a source to be classified as a major source, and $ " Other" pollutant specific emission units: the set of remaining affected pollutant specific emission units This analysis differentiates between these two types of units because they are subject to different monitoring requirements ( e. g., monitoring frequency requirements) and implementation timetables under part 64. There is no difference between this Information Collection Request ( ICR) Update and the ICR analysis performed for the original 1997 rule, other than an adjustment for the general level of prices over time and the correction of several computational errors that affected the 1997 ICR's bottom line estimations but not its conclusions. Consequently, this update reports an average annual burden to sources of 25 thousand hours for " Large" units and 111 thousand hours for " Other" units, with an estimated annualized cost of $ 5.9 million and $ 2.1 million, respectively, in $ 2001. The Agency also estimates the average annual burden for States and other Permitting Authorities ( PAs) at 10 thousand hours ($ 434 thousand) for " Large" units and 27 thousand ($ 1.2 milliion) for " Other" units, for a total annual PA burden and cost of 37 thousand hours and $ 1.6 million in $ 2001. This analysis does not include burden and cost estimates for Federal activities because the small number of sources initiating monitoring within the three year period covered by this ICR makes the impact of these actions negligible. The CAM Rule has no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities ( SISNOSE) and requires no record keeping or reporting that could be considered an unfunded mandate.

Table ES 1 National Results Respondent Type Number of Respondents Average Annual Burden Hours Total Annualized Cost1 Sources ( Large Units) 1,060 24,896 $ 5,922 Sources ( Other Units) 10,730 110,633 $ 2,142 PAs ( Large Units) 112 9,869 $ 434 PAs ( Other Units) 2 112 27,300 $ 1,201 Federal Authority3 1

Total 172,698 $ 9,699 1 In thousands of $ 2001 2 There are only 112 PAs, each of which handles both " Large" and " Other" units 3 Burden hours and costs are expected to be negligible. CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( a) TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) REGULATORY BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2( a) NEED/ AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2( b) USE/ USERS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3( a) RESPONDENTS / SIC CODES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3( b)( i) DATA ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 FIGURE 3 1 DATA REQUIRED BY THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . 5 3( b)( ii) RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED C AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4( a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4( b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4( c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4( c)( i) MEASURES TO AVERT IMPACTS ON SMALL ENTITIES . . . . . . . . . . 9 4( c)( ii) MEASURES TO MITIGATE IMPACTS ON SMALL ENTITIES . . . . . . . . . 9 4( d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4( e) ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5( a) NONDUPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5( b) CONSULTATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5( c) EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5( d) GENERAL GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5( e) CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5( e)( I) CONFIDENTIALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5( e)( ii) SENSITIVE QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . 12 6( a) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6( b) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6 ( c) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 TABLE 6.1 Total and Average Source Burden and Labor Costs for " Large" Sources  All Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 TABLE 6.2 Total and Average Source Burden and Labor Costs for " Other"; Five Sample States  All Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 TABLE 6.3 Permitting Authority Annual Labor Hours and Costs for " Large" Sources  All Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 TABLE 6.4 Permitting Authority Annual Labor Hours and Costs for " Other" Sources  All Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6 ( d) SUMMARY BURDEN HOUR AND COST ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 TABLE 6 5 NATIONAL RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6 ( e) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6 ( f) BURDEN STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1 For purposes of simplicity, this ICR applies the terms " owners and operators", " firm", and " sources" interchangeably. References to actions or responsibilities of sources or firms should be interpreted as referring to the owners and operators of that source or firm.

Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION This document fulfills the Agency's requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) with regards to determining the regulatory burden associated with the Compliance Assurance Monitoring ( CAM) Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 64. It has been assigned EPA tracking number 1663.03and OMB Control Number 2060 0376. The title of this Information Collection Request ( ICR) is " Information Collection Request for the 40 CFR Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Program."

1( b) REGULATORY BACKGROUND Part 64 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR), as defined in the CAM Rule, requires monitoring, compliance certification, periodic reporting, and record keeping information collections by owners and operators of title V sources [ 57 Fed. Reg. 32250 32312] ( 1992) ( codified at 40 C. F. R. part 70) 1 with controlled pollutant specific emissions units that have a precontrol potential to emit major amounts of regulated air pollutants. CAM identifies two categories of emission units:

$ " Large" pollutant specific emission units: units that have the potential to emit, with controls, the applicable regulated air pollutant in an amount equal to or greater than the amount required for a source to be classified as a major source, and $ " Other" pollutant specific emission units: the set of remaining affected pollutant specific emission units This analysis differentiates between these two types of units because they are subject to different monitoring requirements ( e. g., monitoring frequency requirements) and implementation timetables under part 64. Upon approval by the permitting authority ( PA) of the monitoring proposed by the source, the source use the approved monitoring method to collect data. These data provide the basis on which owners or operators can certify, in accordance with the requirements of the operating permit program, the compliance of their emissions units with the applicable requirements. In addition, these data provide the basis on which owners or operators submit monitoring reports on no less than a semi annual basis. Consistent with the recordkeeping period established in the operating permit program, CAM requires sources to store and maintain these data for at least five years. Implementational delays in the CAM Rule over the first three years prevented more thatn a handful of " Large" sources from seeking permits. Consequently, the projected impact described in this update is substantially the same as that reported in the 1997 ICR. In the next three years, the information collection and capital investment requirements of the CAM program will involve Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 2 only some of the affected pollutant points. When fully implemented, the Agency estimates the CAM program will involve approximately 9,000 facilities, covering 27,000 emissions units. This ICR estimates the expected average annual burden over the next three years to be about 49,000 hours, at an expected cost of $ 2.7 million. The activities at sources leading to these impacts include:

$ Determination of a monitoring approach;

$ Installation and operation of monitoring equipment, if necessary;

$ Administrative burden for record keeping and reporting;

$ Upgraded operating/ maintenance activities;

$ Improved quality assurance; and $ Permit fees to cover regulatory costs of the program. Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 3 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) NEED/ AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION EPA's operating permit and CAM programs require this information. The operating permit program requires owners or operators of units that emit air pollutants to submit annual compliance certifications, to submit monitoring results at least semiannually, and to report deviations promptly, but no implementation guidance is provided within the operating permit program. CAM provides the vehicle to implement operating permits program requirements in a cost effective manner. The Clean Air Act ( Act) Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101 549, enacted on November 15, 1990, establish the legal authority for this information collection. Section 502( b) directs EPA to promulgate regulations that will require the owners or operators of certain stationary sources of air pollution to conduct monitoring and to make compliance certifications. These provisions are set forth in both title V ( operating permits provisions) and title VII ( enforcement provisions) of the 1990 Amendments. Title V directs the Agency to implement monitoring and compliance certification requirements through the operating permits program. Section 503( b)( 2) requires at least annual certifications of compliance with permit requirements and prompt reporting of deviations from permit requirements. Section 504( a) mandates that owners or operators submit to the PA the results of any required monitoring at least every six months. This section also requires permits to include " such other conditions as are necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements" of the Act. Section 504( b) of the Act also allows the Agency to prescribe, by rule, methods and procedures for determining compliance, and states that continuous emission monitoring systems need not be required if other methods or procedures provide sufficiently reliable and timely information for determining compliance. Under section 504( c), each operating permit must " set forth inspection, entry, monitoring, compliance certification, and reporting requirements to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions." Title VII of the 1990 Amendments added a new section 114( a)( 3) that requires EPA to promulgate rules on enhanced monitoring and compliance certifications. This paragraph provided, in part:

" The Administrator shall in the case of any person which is the owner or operator of a major stationary source, and may, in the case of any other person, require enhanced monitoring and submission of compliance certifications. Compliance certifications shall include ( A) identification of the applicable requirement that is the basis of the certification, ( B) the method used for determining the compliance status of the source, ( C) the compliance status, ( D) whether compliance is continuous or intermittent, ( E) such other facts as the Administrator may require."

The 1990 Amendments also revised section 114( a)( 1) of the Act to provide additional authority concerning monitoring, reporting, and record keeping requirements. As amended, that section provides the Administrator with the authority to require any owner or operator of a source, on a one time, periodic or continuous basis to: Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 4 ( A) establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables, or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

Obtaining ongoing compliance is a two step process. First, the Agency must assure properly designed control measures are installed or otherwise employed. These measures include control devices, process modifications, operating limitations and other control measures as applicable. Furthermore, the Agency must assure the control measures are proven to be capable of achieving applicable requirements. In the past, this step has been addressed through new source review permitting, initial stack testing, compliance inspections and similar mechanisms. The title V permit application and review process, including the applicant's initial compliance certification and compliance plan obligations, will add another tool for assuring that source owners or operators have adopted proper control measures for achieving compliance. The second step involves monitoring by sources to determine continued assurance that the source's control measures, once installed or otherwise employed, are properly operated and maintained so that they do not deteriorate to the point where the owner or operator fails to remain in compliance with applicable requirements. The Agency believes that monitoring, reporting, record keeping and ongoing or recurring compliance certification requirements under titles V and VII should be designed so that owners or operators carry out this second step in assuring ongoing compliance. The Agency has adopted the CAM approach to assure the proper operation and maintenance of control measures employed by sources. CAM establishes monitoring to:

( 1) documenting continued operation of the control measures within ranges of specified indicators of performance ( such as emissions, control device parameters and process parameters) that are designed to provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable requirements; ( 2) indicating any excursions from these ranges; and ( 3) responding to the data so that excursions are corrected.

This type of monitoring is an appropriate approach to enhanced monitoring in the context of title V permitting for significant emission units that use control devices to achieve compliance with emission limits. In particular, CAM 1) provides cost effective achievement of air pollution emission reductions; 2) establishes voluntary compliance and self certification by owners or operators; and 3) holds owners or operators accountable for regulated air pollutants emitted by units. Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 5 2( b) USE/ USERS OF THE DATA Owners or operators of affected emissions units will use the information as the basis for the compliance certification required by the operating permit program, and as the basis for compliance assurance monitoring reports. Sources will also use the information to determine and maintain the efficiency of process or emissions control devices. PAs will use the information collected and submitted in permit applications in determining acceptability of proposed compliance assurance monitoring. The PAs will use source monitoring data to assess compliance, as input into reports to other agencies, and, when necessary, as evidence in enforcement proceedings. PAs will use the information on excursions and exceedences collected from owners or operators to require the development and implementation by source operators of a Quality Improvement Plan ( QIP). The QIP will address the timetable, methods, and procedures for dealing with these excursions and exceedances. PAs will also collect summaries of information on compliance and will review the information as part of their permitting responsibilities and ongoing compliance activities. The information may be entered into local, regional, or national databases for review and action by air pollution control agencies. Other Federal entities, such as the Department of Energy, may request and use the information collected to fulfill specific mission objectives. Citizens may request the information collected in order to determine the compliance status of any emissions unit or particular group of emissions units. Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 6 3. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 3( a) RESPONDENTS / NAICS CODES CAM applies to most North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) code groups and to certain service industries regulated under the Act.

3( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED 3( b)( i) DATA ITEMS The following matrices display the types of additional data required by the part 64 CAM Rule, along with the location of the requirement in the rule.

FIGURE 3 1 DATA REQUIRED BY THE INFORMATION COLLECTION Additional Requirements for Permit Applications Regulation Reference For all major source pollutant specific emission units that satisfy the applicability criteria outlined in 64.2, the owner or operator shall submit a proposed monitoring approach to the PA. The monitoring approach shall be submitted as part of the initial, revised, or renewed part 70 or 71 permit application. 64.5 Consistent with the design requirements in 64.3, the submission shall include the following information:

the indicators to be monitored to satisfy 64.3( a)( 1)( 2). 64.4( a)( 1)

either ( i) the ranges or designated conditions for such indicators or ( ii) the process by which such indicator ranges or designated conditions shall be established. 64.4( a)( 2)

the performance criteria for the monitoring to satisfy 64.3( b). 64.4( a)( 3)

if applicable, the indicator ranges and performance criteria for a CEMS, COMS, or PEMS pursuant to 64.3( d). 64.4( a)( 4)

As part of the information submitted, the owner or operator shall submit: Additional Requirements for Permit Applications Regulation Reference Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 7 a justification for the proposed elements of monitoring. The justification shall include any supporting data and may refer to any generally available sources of information such as air pollution engineering manuals or EPA or PA publications. In addition, the owner or operator may base the required justification exclusively on the regulatory precedents cited in 64.4( b)( 1)( 5). If the performance specifications proposed to satisfy 64.3( b)( 2) or ( 3) include differences from manufacturer recommendations, the owner or operator shall explain the reasons for the differences. 64.4( b)

control device ( and process and capture system, if applicable) operating parameter data obtained during the conduct of applicable compliance or performance tests. Such data may be supplemented, if desired, by engineering assessments and manufacturer's recommendations to justify the indicator ranges. 64.4( c)( 1)

documentation to certify that no changes to the pollutant specific emissions unit, including the control device and capture system, have taken place. 64.4( c)( 2)

If existing data from unit specific compliance or performance testing specified in 64.4( c) are not available, the owner or operator:

shall submit a test plan and schedule for obtaining such data; or 64.4( d)( 1)

may submit indicator ranges ( or procedures for establishing indicator ranges) that rely on engineering assessments and other data, provided that the owner or operator demonstrates that factors specific to the type of monitoring, control device, or pollutant specific emissions unit make compliance or performance testing unnecessary to establish indicator ranges at levels that satisfy the criteria in 64.3( a). 64.4( d)( 2)

If the monitoring submitted by the owner or operator requires installation, testing, or other necessary activities prior to use for the purposes of part 64, the owner or operator shall include:

an implementation plan and 64.4( e)

schedule for installing, testing, and performing any other appropriate activities prior to the use of the monitoring. 64.4( e)

Reporting Requirements Regulation Reference Submit monitoring reports in accordance with 70.6( a)( 3)( iii). In addition the monitoring report shall include: Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 8 summary information of the number, duration and cause ( including unknown cause, if applicable) of excursions or exceedances and the corrective actions taken. 64.9( a)( 2)( i)

summary information of the number, duration and cause ( including unknown cause, if applicable) for monitor downtime incidents ( other than downtime associated with zero and span or other daily calibration checks, if applicable). 64.9( a)( 2)( ii)

a description of the actions taken to implement a quality improvement plan ( QIP) specified in 64.8. Upon completion of a QIP, the owner or operator shall include in the next summary report documentation that the implementation of the plan has been completed and reduced the likelihood of similar levels of excursions or exceedances occurring. 64.9( a)( 2)( iii)

Record Keeping Requirements Regulation Reference Records shall be maintained in accordance with the requirements specified in 70.6( a)( 3)( ii). In addition the records shall include:

records of monitoring data 64.9( b)

monitor performance data 64.9( b)

any written QIP required pursuant to 64.8 64.9( b)

any corrective actions taken to implement a QIP 64.9( b)

data used to document the adequacy of monitoring 64.9( b)

records of monitoring maintenance. 64.9( b)

Additional Requirements for Compliance Certification Regulation Reference For all affected pollutant specific units, an annual compliance certification is required. As part of the compliance certification, it is necessary to identify:

each term or condition of the permit that is the basis of the certification. 70.6( c)( 5)( iii)( A)

the method( s) or other means used by the owner or operator for determining the compliance status with each term and condition during the certification period, and whether such methods or means provide continuous or intermittent data. 70.6( c)( 5)( iii)( B)

the status of compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit for the period covered by the certification 70.6( c)( 5)( iii)( C)

such other facts as the PA may require. 70.6( c)( 5)( iii)( D) Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 9 3( b)( ii) RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES The following list displays typical activities sources will have to perform to meet the additional permit application, record keeping, and reporting requirements of CAM:

1. Review requirements; 2. Determine monitoring approach; 3. Specify monitoring plan elements; 4. Prepare documentation; 5. Revise CAM, as applicable; 6. Renew CAM at permit renewal; 7. Maintain records; 8. Submit reports; 9. Certify facility compliance. Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 10 4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED C AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 4( a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES State and local agencies will perform the following activities:

1. Rule familiarization; 2. Determine applicability; 3. Review and approve/ disapprove monitoring chosen by owners/ operators; 4. Respond to requests for reviews/ revisions to CAM; 5. Review reports; 6. Evaluate CAM renewals; 7. Review annual facility certifications.

The EPA will perform the following activities:

1. Provide oversight and guidance to State and local agencies; 2. Assess requests for alternative monitoring.

4( b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT CAM does not mandate the use of standardized forms for reporting information. § 64.9( b)( 2) allows record keeping in a variety of media as long as all records are available for inspection and there are no conflicts with other record keeping requirements.

4( c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY The Agency assessed the impacts of the CAM Rule on small businesses, governments, and organizations in Chapter V of the rule's Regulatory Impact Analysis in 1997. This assessment still holds true, indicating the CAM Rule will probably not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities ( SISNOSE). For additional discussion on this assertion, the Agency invites the reader to review the CAM Rule RIA and ICR from 1997. The Agency determined the benefits of additional monitoring requirements on small sources of pollution would not justify the additional cost incurred to achieve them. Section 502( a) of the Act allows that: " The Administrator, may, in the Administrator's discretion and consistent with the applicable provisions of [ the Clean Air Act], promulgate regulations to exempt one of more source categories ( in whole or in part) from the requirements of [ exempt one or several source categories or subcategories, in whole or in part, from the requirements [ of title V] if the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any 2 A small source is not necessarily a small entity, nor is there a direct relationship between large sources and large entities. Source size is a function of the level of its emissions, and entity size depends on the productive capacity and employment of the firm, according to United States Small Business Administration guidelines.

Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 11 major source from such requirements." Acting under this authority, the Agency exercised its discretionary authority and determined the current level of monitoring performed by small sources of pollution 2 is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of part 64, and decided to not subject these small sources of pollution to part 64 monitoring.

4( d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE Submission of initial source information required under part 64 depends on whether the unit is classified as " Large" or " Other." If the source's permit application has not been filed, is being revised, or is not complete, " Large" units must submit monitoring information on or before the 180th day after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. If these conditions are not met, sources must submit monitoring design criteria at the first significant permit revision, or at permit renewal, whichever occurs first. For all other pollutant specific emission units subject to part 64 ( i. e., " Other" units), the owner or operator shall submit the required information upon renewal of a part 70 or 71 permit. Upon approval of the permit, sources must collect the information specified in their permits in accordance with the collection frequency specified, maintaining these data for at least five years. Sources must also submit semi annual monitoring reports and annual compliance certifications. These requirements have not changed since the initial ICR was approved, and because of the delay in program implementation, the scope of their effect has not changed significantly, either.

4( e) ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS The President's priorities in promoting environmental justice are contained in Executive Order # 12898. In and of themselves, monitoring and enforcement requirements do not provide many opportunities for identifying potential environmental justice concerns. The greatest opportunity for insuring and promoting environmental justice under the CAM Rule actually occur under part 70 and 71, which provide the framework for public participation and empowerment. Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 12 5. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 5( a) NONDUPLICATION For approval of a proposed ICR, the Agency must ensure that it has taken every reasonable step to avoid duplication in its paperwork requirements in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.4. The part 64 rulemaking is mandated by the Act, and supports the title V permit program under 40 CFR part 70 as well as title VII enforcement provisions. Recognizing that many sources have already implemented monitoring strategies to fulfill their part 70 requirements, the part 64 monitoring guidelines were carefully crafted by the Agency and OMB to minimize any unnecessary duplication. The part 64 CAM Rule has also been carefully designed to function, as much as possible, in a manner complementary to that of the part 70 operating permit program managed by PAs.

5( b) CONSULTATIONS The Agency has continued discussions with stakeholders through a series of workshops and public meetings. The workgroups at these meetings discussed and review CAM requirements and reviewed extensive public input concerning the development and implementation of CAM.

5( c) EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION As part of the permit application required under the operating permit program, an owner or operator must submit to the PA monitoring that satisfies the design requirements in § 64.3. In addition, it must be demonstrated that the proposed monitoring is sufficient to provide compliance status information. Without such information, PAs will be unable to issue complete permits. Furthermore, owners or operators will be unable to certify compliance with emissions limitations or standards unless costly reference test methods are employed. Part 64 requires semi annual reports because the statue requires all monitoring reports to be submitted at least semiannually ( section 504( a)). In addition, without timely evaluation of the reports, excess emissions of regulated air pollutants could rise. Consequently, less frequent collection of monitoring information is not permissible under the statute and could result in a net loss of environmental quality and was not considered for this rulemaking.

5( d) GENERAL GUIDELINES OMB's general guidelines for information collections must be adhered to by all Federal Agencies for approval of any rulemaking's collection methodology. In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.6, the Agency believes: Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 13 1. Part 64 regulations do not require periodic reporting more frequently that semi annually.

2. The part 64 regulations do not require respondents to participate in any statistical survey.

3. Responses to Agency inquiries are not required to be submitted in less than thirty days.

4. Special consideration has been given in the design of part 64 to ensure that the requirements are, to the greatest extent possible, the same for Federal requirements and those permitting authorities who already have monitoring programs in place.

5. Confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information necessary for the completeness of the respondent's permit are protected from disclosure under the requirements of § 503( e) and § 114( c) of the Act.

6. The part 64 regulations do not require more that one original and two copies of the permit application, update, or revision to be submitted to the Agency.

7. Respondents do not receive remuneration for the preparation of reports required by the Act or part 64.

8. To the greatest extent possible, the Agency has taken advantage of automated methods of reporting.

9. The Agency believes the impact of part 64 on small entities to be insignificant and not disproportionate.

The record keeping and reporting requirements contained in the CAM program regulations do not exceed any of the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6, except for the guideline which limits retention of records by respondents to three years. The CAM program and the operating permit program require both respondents and State or local agencies to retain records for a period of five years. The justification for this exception is found in 28 U. S. C. 2462, which specifies five years as the general statute of limitations for Federal claims in response to violations by regulated entities. The decision in U. S. v. Conoco, Inc., No. 83 1916 E ( W. D. Okla., January 23, 1984) found that the five year general statute of limitations applied to the Clean Air Act.

5( e) CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS 5( e)( i) CONFIDENTIALITY Confidentiality is not an issue for this rulemaking. In accordance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, monitoring information must be submitted by sources as a part of their permit application and update; and revisions  all of which are a matter of public record. To the Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 14 extent that the information required is proprietary, confidential, or of a nature that could impair the ability of the source to maintain its market position, that information is collected and handled subject to the requirements of § 503( e) and § 114( c) of the Act. Information received and identified by owners or operators as confidential business information ( CBI) and approved as CBI by EPA, in accordance with Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B, shall be maintained appropriately ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

5( e)( ii) SENSITIVE QUESTIONS Sensitive questions, ( i. e., sexual, religious, personal or other private matters), are not applicable to this rulemaking. The information gathered for purposes of establishing an operating permit for a source do not include personal data on any owner or operator. Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 15 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION This section discusses the development of burden estimates and their conversion estimates into costs, which are separated into burden costs and capital and O& M costs. The methodology employed in this ICR matches that used in the original 1997 ICR. According to the latest guidance for ICRs, capital and O& M costs display the cost of any new capital equipment the source or PA may have to purchase solely for information collection, assimilation, and storage purposes. For example, if a source had to purchase a new mini computer to store and manipulate CEM data, that computer would be a cost of administration subject to reporting in the ICR. In addition, the latest guidance instructs the Agency to differentiate the burden associated with a source's labor and that which it hires through outside contractors. However, a sensitivity analysis of the effect of contracted labor on the CAM Rule reveals that, if all of the affected sources were to employ contractors to perform as much as half of the work necessary for full compliance with the rule, overall costs would increase by less than five percent. Consequently, this analysis assumes sources will not employ contracted labor.

Note that the Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on April 26, 2001, 66 FR 20986; no comments were received.

6( a) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN This section presents estimates of the burden hours expected to be incurred at sources with emission units affected by Compliance Assurance Monitoring, applying the same methodology used for this rulemaking's original RIA and ICR. Results are contained in Tables 6 1 through 6 4. These tables summarize burden impacts for all pollutants by activity. The burden estimates reflect the expert judgement of EPA staff, contractors, and industry experts. All burden estimates represent the increment over part 70 requirements. Due to the differences in monitoring frequency requirements and implementation schedules for the " Large" and " Other" emission units, the Agency calculated the associated burdens separately. Tables 6 1 and 6 2 report labor burdens for each type of units. The estimation methodology employed in this ICR is the same as that used in the initial ICR of 1997. Average annual labor burden is computed as the arithmetic average of the sum of the annual labor burden across the three years of the information collection. Total annual burden for the five State sample is computed as the product of the annual labor hours per respondent for a specific activity times the number of respondents. National totals are derived by multiplying the values from the five State sample by ten. This analysis estimates the national average annual labor burden over the next three years for " Large" and " Other" emissions units at about 25 thousand hours and 111 thousand hours, respectively. Differences between the prior ICR and the results in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 are due to changes in labor cost and arithmetic errors revealed during this update. Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 16 6( b) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COSTS Tables 6 1 and 6 2 also show the costs associated with each type of emission unit. Burden costs in Tables 6 1 and 6 2 are classified into one of three categories: costs associated with CAM design activities, record keeping activities, or reporting activities. Also, for capital and O& M costs, the tables only report aggregate totals. The nature of the data prohibits any further disaggregation. All cost estimates represent the increment over part 70 requirements. Consistent with the 1997 ICR, this study identifies two labor categories: a management level category with a wage rate of $ 75/ hour ( revised from the 1997 ICR to 2001 dollars) and a technical staff category with a rate of $ 38/ hour ( also revised to 2001 dollars). These rate assumptions are consistent with other RIAs and ICRs prepared by this Agency. The cost of the Federal burden included in this ICR was derived through a process determined by the EPA's Office of General Council ( OGC). The OGC determined the appropriated base salary level to employ was a GS 11, Step 3 ( FY 95 Schedule), with the addition of one eleventh of a supervisory staff member's salary at GS 13 Step 3 ( FY 95 Schedule) and oneeighth of a support staff person's salary at GS 6 Step 6 ( FY 95 Schedule). To this base salary, OGC instructed the EPA to add 16 percent for benefits, 10 percent for sick leave and vacation, and a factor of 32.3 percent for general overhead. This total loaded salary was then divided by 2,080 hours to establish a per hour rate for Federal employees. This rate also applies to state and other PA's analysts' salaries. From Tables 6 1 and 6 2, the national total annualized cost ($ 2001) is $ 1.2 million for " Large" units and $ 5.2 million for the " Other" units. The Agency calculated capital and O& M costs separately for items associated with the collection request. All capital equipment costs for durable monitoring equipment are annualized over the expected life of the equipment and discounted at a seven percent real rate. Tables 6 1 shows the capital and O& M costs associated with " Large" units, reported at $ 123 thousand per year. " Other" emissions units have no incremental capital or O& M costs over the three years of this ICR.

6( c) ESTIMATING STATE BURDEN AND COST Tables 6 3 and 6 4 show the burden and costs for State and Local Agencies for " Large" and " Other" units, respectively. The Agency believes the activities shown in the tables fully define the State and Local Agencies' burden under part 64. The labor hour estimates for each activity are based on the expert knowledge of EPA staff. The labor estimates for these activities reflect the PA hours required to complete the activities for one pollutant specific emissions unit. Depending on the activity, the labor hours required may be broken out by the type of existing monitoring and the type of response. Costs are reported in 2001 dollars and reflect a time horizon of three years. Total annualized costs for all PAs are $ 434 thousand for " Large" units and $ 1.2 million for " Other" units. The operating permits program requires the cost of administering a State permit program to be fully repaid out of the permitting fees collected by that State. Therefore, the true cost of the CAM Rule to States and other PAs is zero, and the recorded cost of administration should be allocated to sources. Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 17 This analysis does not include burden and cost estimates for Federal activities. Based on historical data for related actions under other regulations, the Agency's permitting experts determined each request can be processed with no more than two hours of labor. Because of the small number of sources initiating monitoring within the three year period covered by this ICR, the impact of these actions is expected to be negligible. Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 18 TABLE 6.1 Total and Average Source Burden and Labor Costs for " Large" Sources  All Pollutants 5 State Sample National Annual  Per Respondent Number of Respondents Labor Hours Per Unit Year 3 Year Total 3 Year Average Task CAM Activities Admin. Tech. Cost1 2001 02 2002 03 2003 04 Hours Cost2 Hours Cost2 1 Review Requirements 5 15 $ 945 106 0 0 21,200 $ 1,002 7,067 $ 334 2 Determine Monitoring Approach Units without existing monitoring 0.75 2.25 $ 142 43 7 29 2,370 $ 112 790 $ 37 Units with existing monitoring 0.25 0.75 $ 47 49 7 34 900 $ 42 300 $ 14 3 Specify Monitoring Elements Units w/ out monitoring: non CEM/ COM 4 12 $ 756 38 6 26 11,200 $ 8,467 3,733 $ 2,822 Units w/ out monitoring: CEM/ COM 2 8 $ 454 5 1 3 900 $ 409 300 $ 136 Units with monitoring: non CEM/ COM 2 8 $ 454 28 4 20 5,200 $ 2,361 1,733 $ 787 Units with monitoring: CEM/ COM 1 3 $ 189 20 3 14 1,480 $ 280 493 $ 93 4 Design Documentaiton Units w/ out monitoring: non CEM/ COM 0 4 $ 152 38 6 28 2,880 $ 438 960 $ 146 Units w/ out monitoring: CEM/ COM 0 2 $ 76 5 1 3 180 $ 14 60 $ 5 Units with monitoring: non CEM/ COM 0 2 $ 76 28 4 20 1,040 $ 79 347 $ 26 Units with monitoring: CEM/ COM 0 1 $ 38 20 3 14 370 $ 14 123 $ 5 5 CAM Revisions Units without existing monitoring 0 4 $ 152 0 1 3 160 $ 24 53 $ 8 Units with existing monitoring 0 2 $ 76 0 1 3 80 $ 12 27 $ 4 6 CAM Renewal 2 8 $ 454 0 0 62 6,200 $ 2,815 2,067 $ 938 7 Recordkeeping Activities Incremental recordkeeping burden 0 26 $ 988 0 1 1 520 $ 514 173 $ 171 Daily recordkeeping for new work 0 390 $ 14,820 0 2 2 15,600 $ 593 5,200 $ 198 Incremental recordkeeping burden ( VE) 0 26 $ 988 0 2 2 1,040 $ 40 347 $ 13 8 Incremental reporting 0 1 $ 38 0 91 106 1,970 $ 75 657 $ 25 9 Facility Certificaiton 0.71 0 $ 53 0 91 106 1,399 $ 105 466 $ 35 TOTALS 17.71 515 $ 20,898 74,689 $ 17,396 24,896 $ 5,799 CAPITAL AND O& M COSTS $ 123 TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS $ 5,922 1 In $ 2001 2 In Thousands of $ 2001 Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 19 TABLE 6.2 Total and Average Source Burden and Labor Costs for " Other" Sources  All Pollutants Per Respondent National Annual  Per Respondent Number of Respondents Labor Hours Per Unit Year 3 Year Total 3 Year Average Task CAM Activities Admin. Tech. Cost1 2001 02 2002 03 2003 04 Hours Cost2 Hours Cost2 1 Review Requirements 5 15 $ 945 10,730 0 0 214,600 $ 1,014 71,533 $ 338 2 Determine Monitoring Approach Units without existing monitoring 0.75 2.25 $ 142 0 0 2,540 7,620 $ 361 2,540 $ 120 Units with existing monitoring 0.25 0.75 $ 47 0 0 2,140 2,140 $ 101 713 $ 3 3 Specify Monitoring Elements Units w/ out monitoring: non CEM/ COM 4 12 $ 756 0 0 2,470 39,520 $ 1,867 13,173 $ 622 Units w/ out monitoring: CEM/ COM 2 6 $ 378 0 0 70 560 $ 26 187 $ 9 Units with monitoring: non CEM/ COM 2 6 $ 378 0 0 1,870 14,960 $ 707 4,987 $ 236 Units with monitoring: CEM/ COM 1 3 $ 189 0 0 260 1,040 $ 49 347 $ 16 4 Design Documentaiton Units w/ out monitoring: non CEM/ COM 0 4 $ 152 0 0 2,470 9,880 $ 375 3,293 $ 125 Units w/ out monitoring: CEM/ COM 0 2 $ 76 0 0 70 140 $ 5 47 $ 2 Units with monitoring: non CEM/ COM 0 2 $ 76 0 0 1,870 3,740 $ 142 1,247 $ 47 Units with monitoring: CEM/ COM 0 1 $ 38 0 0 260 260 $ 10 87 $ 3 5 CAM Revisions Units without existing monitoring 0 4 $ 152 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 Units with existing monitoring 0 2 $ 76 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 6 CAM Renewal 2 6 $ 378 0 0 4,680 37,440 $ 1,769 12,480 $ 590 7 Recordkeeping Activities Incremental recordkeeping burden 0 26 $ 988 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 Daily recordkeeping for new work 0 130 $ 4,940 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 Incremental recordkeeping burden ( VE) 0 26 $ 988 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 8 Incremental reporting 0 1 $ 38 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 9 Facility Certificaiton 0.71 0 $ 53 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 TOTALS 17.71 249 10772.54 10,730 0 18,700 331,900 $ 6,426 110,633 $ 2,142 CAPITAL AND O& M COSTS $ 0 TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS $ 2,142 1 In $ 2001 2 In Thousands of $ 2001 Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 20 Table 6.3 Permitting Authority Annual Labor Hours and Costs for " Large" Sources  All Pollutants 5 State Sample National Per Respondent Respondents Total Annual CAM Activities Hours Cost1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Hours Costs 1 Hours Costs 1 Rule Familiarization 54 $ 2,376 5 0 0 270 $ 11,880 2,700 $ 118,800 Applicability Determination 0.67 $ 29 0 91 15 71 $ 3,125 710 $ 31,249 Initial CAM Review W/ o existing monitoring: non CEM/ COM 2 $ 88 0 38 6 88 $ 3,872 880 $ 38,720 W/ o existing monitoring: CEM/ COM 1 $ 44 0 5 1 6 $ 264 60 $ 2,640 With existing monitoring: non CEM/ COM 1 $ 44 0 28 5 33 $ 1,452 330 $ 14,520 With existing monitoring: CEM/ COM 0.5 $ 22 0 20 3 12 $ 506 115 $ 5,060 CAM Revisions Units w/ o existing monitoring 1 $ 44 0 1 3 4 $ 176 40 $ 1,760 Units with existing monitoring 0.5 $ 22 0 1 3 2 $ 88 20 $ 880 Review Reports 2 $ 88 0 91 107 396 $ 17,424 3,960 $ 174,240 CAM Renewals 1 $ 44 0 0 0 40 $ 1,760 400 $ 17,600 Certifications 0.33 $ 15 0 91 107 65 $ 2,875 653 $ 28,750 Total Cost and Burden: 987 $ 43,422 9,869 $ 434,218 1 In real $ 2001.

TABLE 6.4 Permitting Authority Labor Hours and Costs for " Other" Sources  All Pollutants 5 State Sample National Per Respondent Respondents Total Annual CAM Activities Hours Cost Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Hours Costs 1 Hours Costs 1 Rule Familiarization 546 $ 24,024 5 0 0 2,730 $ 120,120 27,300 $ 1,201,200 Applicability Determination 0.67 $ 29 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 Initial CAM Review W/ o existing monitoring: non CEM/ COM 2 $ 88 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 W/ o existing monitoring: CEM/ COM 1 $ 44 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 With existing monitoring: non CEM/ COM 1 $ 44 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 With existing monitoring: CEM/ COM 0.5 $ 22 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 CAM Revisions Units w/ o existing monitoring 1 $ 44 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 Units with existing monitoring 0.5 $ 22 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 Review Reports 2 $ 88 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 CAM Renewals 1 $ 44 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 Certifications 0.33 $ 15 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 Total Cost and Burden: 2,730 $ 120,120 27,300 $ 1,201,200 1 In real $ 2001 6( d) SUMMARY BURDEN HOUR AND COST ESTIMATES Table 6 5 summarizes the national annual average expected burden hours and annualized costs displayed in Tables 6 1 through 6 4. Table 6 5 reports the results for PAs differentiated by " Large" and " Other" unit source types. These data include the annualized costs for reporting and record keeping activities as well as the annualized costs for capital equipment and O& M. Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 21 Table 6 5 National Results Respondent Type Number of Respondents Average Annual Burden Hours Total Annualized Cost1 Sources ( Large Units) 1,060 24,896 $ 5,922 Sources ( Other Units) 10,730 110,633 $ 2,142 PAs ( Large Units) 112 9,869 $ 434 PAs ( Other Units) 2 112 27,300 $ 1,201 Federal Authority3 1 Total 172,698 $ 9,699 1 In thousands of $ 2001 2 There are only 112 PAs, each of which handles both " Large" and " Other" units 3 Burden hours and costs are expected to be negligible.

6( e) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN The changes in the burden associated with the CAM Rule since the approval of the initial ICR in 1997 are associated with better estimation of costs, gained through experience, as well as adjustment for the rate of inflation and correction of several arithmetic and typographical errors that did not change the conclusions of this analysis.

6( f) BURDEN STATEMENT Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions 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. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division, ( Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460 0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 1663.03 and OMB control number 2060 0376 in any correspondence. Part 64 Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule Information Collection Request Page 22


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 6, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35404-35406]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14195]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0646; FRL-10025-28-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Utah; 2017
Base Year Inventories for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for the Uinta Basin, Northern Wasatch Front and
Southern Wasatch Front Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Utah. The
revision fulfills the base year inventory requirement for the 2015 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the Uinta
Basin, Northern Wasatch Front, and Southern Wasatch Front nonattainment
areas (NAAs). Utah submitted the base year emissions inventories to
meet, in part, the nonattainment requirements for Marginal ozone NAAs
under the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is taking this action pursuant
to sections 110, 172, and 182 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on August 5, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0646. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Lang, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado, 80202-1129, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our April
1, 2021 proposal.\1\ We proposed to approve the 2017 base year
inventories for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Uinta Basin,
Northern Wasatch Front, and Southern Wasatch Front Marginal NAAs
because the State prepared the inventories in accordance with the
requirements in sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) \2\ of the CAA and its
implementing regulations, including those at 40 CFR 51.1315. EPA is
finalizing its proposed approval of Utah's 2017 base year inventories
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Uinta Basin, Northern Wasatch
Front, and Southern Wasatch Front Marginal NAAs. With this final
rulemaking Utah will have met one of three requirements stemming from
the Marginal nonattainment designation of the Uinta Basin, Northern
Wasatch Front, and Southern Wasatch Front areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Utah;
2017 Base Year Inventories for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Uinta Basin, Northern Wasatch
Front and Southern Wasatch Front Nonattainment Areas, 86 FR 17106
(April 1, 2021).
    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3), 7511a(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    EPA held a 30-day comment period on the proposed rulemaking
beginning on April 1, 2021 and closing on May 3, 2021. We received one
supportive comment letter from the Utah Petroleum Association (UPA),
which focused on the Uinta Basin NAA. Our response to UPA's comment
letter is below.
    Comment summary: UPA states that it supports EPA's approval of the
base year inventory, specifically supports the choice of 2017 as the
base year, and supports use of an emissions inventory from a National
Emissions Inventory year. UPA also commends the Utah Division of Air
Quality for its decision to include a separate oil and gas source
category in the base year, which UPA says improves transparency of
critical information needed to understand ozone formation in the Uinta
Basin.
    UPA also raises two areas of concern: (1) The lack of an
opportunity to comment on the base year inventory for tribal lands
within the Uinta Basin NAA; and (2) the need to be able to adjust the
base year inventory based on evolving research and calculation methods.
UPA explains that Utah's base year inventory includes only State-
controlled lands, but tribal lands in the Uinta Basin include
significant emissions sources, and UPA is not aware of any opportunity
to comment on a base year inventory for the tribal lands. Further, UPA
states that studies relevant to the emissions inventory are ongoing and
recommends that EPA allow updates to the base year inventory to account
for this evolving research. In particular, UPA states that such an
update is important for determining the adequacy of future Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP) emission reductions as well as for photochemical
modeling.
    Response: We thank UPA for the supportive comment letter and we
agree with UPA that Utah's SIP revision included the appropriate base
year and was otherwise based on the most current and accurate
information available to the State at the time the inventories were
developed. With respect to UPA's concern regarding a lack of
opportunity to comment on an inventory for sources on tribal land, we
note that an inventory of emissions from Indian country sources is
outside of the scope of this rulemaking. As explained in EPA's proposed
rule, and repeated above, EPA is approving Utah's SIP submission
because the base year inventories therein accord with the requirements
in sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the CAA and its implementing
regulations, including those at 40 CFR 51.1315.
    Similarly, we thank UPA for informing us of ongoing studies related
to emissions in the Uinta Basin NAA. The inventories submitted by the
State of Utah were based on the most current and accurate information
available to the State at the time that the inventories were developed.
If, at any point in the future, Utah believes that a revision to the
base year inventory is necessary, EPA is open to discussing that issue
with the State.\3\ At this time, however,

EPA cannot determine whether any future updates to the current base
year inventory would be necessary or appropriate, and such a
determination is outside the scope of this rulemaking. We also note
that, regardless of any possible update to the base year inventory,
Utah is required to submit revised inventories every three years under
section 182(a)(3)(A) of the CAA until the area is redesignated to
attainment.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA generally acknowledges that in certain circumstances,
updating an already-approved base year inventory may be appropriate.
Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Regional Haze Regulations, May 2017, 42 (``In the event that
updated [Rate of Progress/Reasonable Further Progress] plan(s) are
needed after initial submittal to meet the requirements of the Ozone
Implementation Rule, the [Rate of Progress/Reasonable Further
Progress] baseline NAA inventory may also need to be updated.'').
    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 7511a(a)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing approval of Utah's 2017 base year inventories for
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Uinta Basin, Northern Wasatch
Front, and Southern Wasatch Front Marginal NAAs because the State
prepared the inventories in accordance with the requirements in
sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the CAA and its implementing
regulations, including those at 40 CFR 51.1315.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 7, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 25, 2021.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    For the reasons set forth above, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as
follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart TT--Utah

0
2. In Sec.  52.2320, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
undesignated center heading and the entry ``Ozone (8-hour, 2015) Uinta
Basin, Northern Wasatch Front and Southern Wasatch Front 2017 Base Year
Inventories'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     State
                  Rule title                    effective date      Final rule citation, date        Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Summary of Criteria Pollutant Attainment Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone (8-hour, 2015) Uinta Basin, Northern           7/29/2020  7/6/2021, [insert Federal
 Wasatch Front and Southern Wasatch Front 2017                   Register citation].
 Base Year Inventories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-14195 Filed 7-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75937-75941]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30627]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, FRL-9235-7]
RIN 2060-AP36

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of reconsideration of final rule; request for public
comment; notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: On March 3, 2010, EPA published final national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants for existing compression
ignition stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines.
Subsequently, the Administrator received two petitions for
reconsideration concerning one particular issue arising from the final
rule. EPA is announcing our reconsideration of and requesting public
comment on that one issue. Specifically, while EPA is not proposing at
this time any specific changes to our regulations, EPA is requesting
comment on our decision to amend the limitations on operation of
emergency stationary engines to allow emergency engines to operate for
up to 15 hours per year as part of an emergency demand response
program. EPA plans to issue a final decision on this issue as
expeditiously as possible. EPA is seeking comment only on this issue.
EPA will not respond to any comments addressing any other issue or any
other provisions of the final rule or any other rule.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 7,
2011, or 30 days after date of public meeting if later.
    Public Meeting. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a
public meeting by December 27, 2010, a public meeting will be held on
January 6, 2011. If you are interested in attending the public meeting,
contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at<PHONE_NUMBER> to verify that a meeting
will be held.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0708, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person
identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, U.S. EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC. 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-HQ-OAR-
2008-0708. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The

http://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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or 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.
    Public Meeting: If a public meeting is held, it will be held at
EPA's campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle
Park, NC or an alternate site nearby.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. EPA also relies on documents in Docket ID
Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-
0030, and incorporated those dockets into the record for this action.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melanie King, Energy Strategies
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of This Document. The following
outline is provided to aid in locating information in the preamble.

I. General Information
    A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration
action?
    B. What entities are potentially affected by the reconsideration
action?
    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Background
III. Discussion of the Issue
IV. Solicitation of Public Comment and Participation
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412
and 7607(d)(7)(B)). This action is also subject to section 307(d) of
the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)).

B. What entities are potentially affected by the reconsideration
action?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
             Category               NAICS \1\           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry using a stationary           2211  Electric power
 reciprocating internal                          generation,
 combustion engine.                              transmission, or
                                                 distribution.
                                        622110  Medical and surgical
                                                 hospitals.
                                         48621  Natural gas
                                                 transmission.
                                        211111  Crude petroleum and
                                                 natural gas production.
                                        211112  Natural gas liquids
                                                 producers.
                                         92811  National security.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your engine is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.6585. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI to only the following address: Ms. Melanie King, c/o
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708.

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
    (a) Identify the action by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    (b) Follow directions. EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations part or section number.
    (c) Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    (d) Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    (e) If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    (f) Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    (g) Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    (h) Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    Docket. The docket number for this action is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0708.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this action will be posted on the WWW through the
Technology Transfer Network Website (TTN Web). Following signature, EPA
will post a copy of this action on the TTN's policy and guidance page
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

II. Background

    On March 3, 2010, EPA promulgated national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing stationary compression
ignition (CI) reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) (75 FR
9648). The final NESHAP for stationary RICE were promulgated under 40
CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, which already contained standards applicable
to new stationary RICE and some existing stationary RICE. The final CI
RICE NESHAP is available at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ab3523.
    Following promulgation of the March 3, 2010, final rule, the EPA
Administrator received a petition for reconsideration, dated April 30,
2010, from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DE DNREC) pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of
the CAA. The EPA Administrator also received a petition for
reconsideration, dated May 27, 2010, from CPower Inc., EnergyConnect
Inc., EnerNOC Inc., and Innoventive Power LLC (EnerNOC, et al.)
pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. On August 2, 2010, EPA
issued a letter to the counsels for the DE DNREC and EnerNOC, et al.
granting the petitions for reconsideration and indicating that the
Agency would issue a Federal Register notice regarding the
reconsideration process. This action requests comment on issues raised
in the petitions for reconsideration.
    In addition to the petitions for reconsideration, one petition for
judicial review of the March 3, 2010, final NESHAP for existing
stationary CI RICE was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by EnerNOC, et al. (Doc. No. 10-1090, D.C.
Cir). On June 3, 2010, EPA filed an unopposed motion to hold the case
in abeyance while the Agency considers the pending administrative
petitions for reconsideration. On June 4, 2010, the Court granted EPA's
motion and ordered the case held in abeyance pending further order from
the Court. The petitions for reconsideration are available for review
at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480af3dd6 and http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480afedbd.

III. Discussion of the Issue

    On March 5, 2009, EPA proposed NESHAP for several categories of
existing stationary RICE (74 FR 9698). That proposed rule made
revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. The pre-existing subpart
ZZZZ stated that emergency stationary RICE did not include engines that
supply power to an electric grid or otherwise provide power as part of
a financial arrangement with another entity. The proposed rule did not
change the definition, but specified certain use requirements for
existing emergency stationary RICE.
    EPA received comments on the proposed rule recommending that
emergency stationary RICE be allowed to participate in emergency demand
response programs to ensure stability of the electric grid. Based on
the comments, EPA determined that it would be appropriate to allow
emergency engines to operate as part of emergency demand response
programs for a limited number of hours of operation per year in
situations where grid failure and a blackout are imminent. EPA included
a provision in the March 3, 2010, final rule specifying that emergency
engines could be operated for a maximum of 15 hours per year as part of
a demand response program if the regional transmission organization or
equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator has determined
there are emergency conditions that could lead to a potential
electrical blackout, such as unusually low frequency, equipment
overload, capacity or energy deficiency, or unacceptable voltage level.
    Following promulgation of the final rule, EPA received two
petitions for reconsideration regarding the allowance for operation of
emergency engines in emergency demand response programs. The petition
from DE DNREC requested that EPA reconsider the decision to allow 15
hours of emergency demand response operation for emergency engines
because of the adverse impacts of the increased emissions from these
engines. According to the DE DNREC, the emergency demand response
operation would likely occur on high ozone days, and would undercut the
progress Delaware has made in reducing emissions of hazardous air
pollutants, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ozone. The
DE DNREC also stated that there was insufficient notice that EPA would
amend the provisions for stationary emergency engines.
    The petition from EnerNOC, et al. requested that EPA revise the
allowance for emergency demand response operation in the final rule to
allow the engines to be operated for a maximum of 60 hours per year or
the minimum hours required by the Independent System Operator (ISO)
tariff, whichever is less. In the opinion of EnerNOC, et al., the final
rule may prevent emergency engines from participating in emergency
demand response programs since the engines may not be able to meet ISO
tariff requirements that specify minimum hours of availability to
participate. According to the petition from EnerNOC, et al., emergency
engines have historically been called to operate for emergency demand
response on a very limited basis. The EnerNOC, et al. petition provided
a summary of the historical usage of engines in emergency demand
response programs. The petitioners were of the opinion that emergency
demand response programs provide a benefit to the environment by
preventing rotating or wholesale blackouts, which would result in the
operation of all emergency engines in the affected area.

IV. Solicitation of Public Comment and Participation

    EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final
decisions. At this time EPA is not proposing any specific revisions to
our regulations allowing 15 hours for emergency stationary RICE in
emergency demand response programs in the final NESHAP for stationary
RICE. However, EPA requests public comment on the regulations
delineating the allowance to assess whether those regulations should be
revised. EPA requests comment on whether or not engines should be
allowed to participate in emergency demand response programs, while
keeping their status as emergency engines under the regulations, and if
they are allowed to participate, what, if any, limitations should be
placed on the operation of emergency engines in emergency demand
response programs. EPA specifically requests comment on whether
emergency engines in emergency demand response programs should be
limited to use during periods in which the regional transmission
organization or equivalent balancing authority and transmission
operator directs the implementation of operating procedures for voltage
reductions of 5 percent of normal operating voltage requiring more than
10 minutes to implement, voluntary load curtailments by customers, or
automatic or manual load-shedding, in response to, or to prevent the
occurrence of, unusually low frequency, equipment overload, capacity or
energy deficiency, unacceptable voltage levels, or other such emergency
conditions. EPA also requests comment on whether the limitation on use
should be for periods in which the regional transmission authority or
equivalent balancing authority has declared an Energy Emergency Alert
Level 2 (EEA Level 2) as defined in the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation Reliability Standard EOP-002-3, Capacity and
Energy Emergency.
    EPA is also requesting information on whether the operation of
these engines in emergency demand response programs is needed to ensure
the stability of the electric grid. EPA is seeking comment on whether
the costs for meeting the requirements for non-emergency engines would
prevent these engines from taking part in emergency demand response
programs.
    In addition, EPA is requesting information on the environmental
impact of the operation of these engines. EPA is interested in
information on the typical frequency and duration of the operation of
these engines in emergency demand response programs and whether their
operation tends to occur on high ozone days.
    EPA recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise
portions of the New Source Performance Standards for Stationary
Compression Ignition and Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion
Engines. 75 FR 32612 (June 8, 2010). In that action, EPA proposed
revising the definition and use restrictions on emergency stationary
internal combustion engines in 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ,
to correspond to the definition of emergency RICE and the restrictions
on emergency RICE finalized in the March 3, 2010, final NESHAP for
existing stationary CI RICE. Therefore, the comments received on this
issue in both proceedings may be relevant to one another.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
EPA is not proposing any new information collection activities (e.g.,
monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping) as part of this action. With this
action, EPA is seeking additional comments on one aspect of the final
NESHAP for existing stationary CI RICE (75 FR 9648, March 3, 2010). The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0548. The
OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action
seeks comment on one aspect of the final NESHAP for existing stationary
CI RICE without proposing any changes to the rule, and it does not
impose any new requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action
requests comment on one aspect of the final NESHAP for existing
stationary CI RICE without proposing any changes to the rule

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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. This action seeks comment on one
aspect of the final NESHAP for existing stationary CI RICE without
proposing any changes to the rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will
not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on
technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations.
    EPA has determined that this action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This action seeks comment on one aspect of the final
NESHAP for existing stationary CI RICE without proposing any changes to
the rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated: November 30, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-30627 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P