Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES May 18, 2006 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Inorganic Chlorates: Addendum to the Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) Document ( Case 4049)

PC Codes: Sodium Chlorate: 073301 Potassium Chlorate: 073302 Calcium Chlorate: 073303 Magnesium Chlorate: 530200 FROM: Matthew Crowley, Environmental Protection Specialist Reregistration Branch 4 Health Effects Division THRU: Susan Hummel, Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 4 Health Effects Division TO: Molly Clayton, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review and Reregistration Division DP Barcode( s): D328930 The attached document is an addendum to the Health Effects Division ( HED) chapter for the inorganic chlorates RED Document. It updates the occupational and residential exposure ( ORE) section following comments received regarding non agricultural uses from the chemical registrants and a product formulator during the RED process. Page 2 of 4 1.0 Executive Summary Sodium chlorate, potassium chlorate, calcium chlorate, and magnesium chlorate are included in this RED case ( 4049), however sodium chlorate is the only chemical assessed, as it is the only inorganic chlorate present in any registered products as an active ingredient ( ai). This document is an addendum to the previous ORE assessment for the RED chapter ( D307365) in which all uses of sodium chlorate were assessed: as both an agricultural defoliant/ desiccant and as a nonselective commercial and residential herbicide.

The purpose of this document is to present revised risks for occupational handlers ( i. e., pesticide mixers, loaders, and applicators) based on comments during the RED process from the registrants and a product formulator concerning the use pattern ( i. e., application rates, target sites, and amount treated) for the non selective herbicidal uses. The use of sodium chlorate as a non selective herbicide can be characterized as a spot treatment use as opposed to a broadcast application. Standard HED assumptions for amount of area treated per day based on the equipment used greatly overestimate areas treated with sodium chlorate. Therefore, risk calculations have been developed to better represent the use pattern for sodium chlorate.

Risk estimates presented in this document supersede those presented in the previous assessment for the non selective herbicidal use of sodium chlorate in non agricultural/ industrial settings which included additional equipment and larger daily areas treated. Risk estimates for all other scenarios ( i. e., occupational and residential) previously assessed remain unchanged.

All risk estimates presented in this addendum are not of concern ( Margins of Exposure ( MOEs) > 100) at baseline ( i. e., no respiratory protection).

2.0 Occupational Handler Exposure and Risk Summary 2.1 Exposure Data, Factors, and Assumptions All data, factors, and assumptions used in this addendum are the same as those used in the previous ORE assessment. These include, but are not limited to:

body weight ( 70 kg representing adult handlers);

toxicological endpoints ( short/ intermediate term oral NOAEL of 30 mg/ kg/ day) and uncertainty factors ( Level of Concern ( LOC) for the MOE is 100);

application rates ( in lb ai/ acre   presented as a range to encompass the various registered products); and,

unit exposures ( from PHED and/ or ORETF database, both of which have undergone appropriate review by the Human Studies Review Board).

The following factors, however, have been revised based on updated use pattern information and proposed product label revisions:

  Application equipment Page 3 of 4 Sodium chlorate is applied to non agricultural areas ( i. e., rights of ways, building perimeters, ditch banks, bleachers, airport runways, vacant lots, fire hydrants, or as a prepaving treatment) using " handheld" equipment such as rotary spreaders and pump or power sprayers. This is revised from the previous assessment which assessed applications with larger, industrial equipment such as tractor spreaders or groundboom sprayers.

  Daily area treated ( i. e., the area to which an applicator applies per work day)

The previous assessment utilized product labels to establish the type of equipment used to apply sodium chlorate ( see " application equipment" above). Standard HED assumptions for the amount applied per work day based on the application equipment were used to determine exposure and risk. As a result of discussions and submitted comments, however, it appears that standard assumptions would greatly overestimate daily use of sodium chlorate. For example:

o A label specific application of 8 pints of product diluted in 4 gallons of water applied to 100 square feet [ EPA Reg. No. 7701 34] yields a " per acre" application rate of 1032 lbs sodium chlorate, or 2196 gallons of solution. For typical applications in the use sites described for sodium chlorate, HED standard assumptions call for a daily area treated for occupational settings of 40 acres for larger industrial equipment and 5 acres for handheld rotary or power sprayers. For these amounts, a mixer, loader, or applicator would have to handle thousands of pounds of sodium chlorate per day and HED believes this to be impractical, if not impossible.

The daily area treated has therefore been revised to reflect the sodium chlorate specific use pattern:

o Submitted information indicates that no more than 8,000 ft2 of an acre ( approximately 20%) will be treated with sodium chlorate. Therefore, HED has adjusted the standard assumptions for acres treated per day to reflect this spot treatment type scenario. Note: it is recognized that this still presents a conservative estimate for some scenarios where the adjustment results in treatment of 1 acre per day which corresponds to the high end estimate of 1032 lbs ai handled per day.

2.1 Risk Summary Table 1 below presents the revised risks for the non selective herbicidal uses of sodium chlorate in non agricultural/ industrial areas.

Table 1: Sodium Chlorate: Short and Intermediate Term Occupational Inhalation Exposure Exposure Scenario Daily Area Treated1 Crop/ Target Application Rate2 Inhalation MOE3 Mitigation Level4 Mixer/ Loaders 1032 1700 Baseline 523 3300 Baseline Mixing/ Loading liquids for Rights of Way Sprayer application 1 Industrial/ Non Crop Sites 132 13000 Baseline Page 4 of 4 Table 1: Sodium Chlorate: Short and Intermediate Term Occupational Inhalation Exposure Exposure Scenario Daily Area Treated1 Crop/ Target Application Rate2 Inhalation MOE3 Mitigation Level4 Applicators 1032 520 Baseline 523 1000 Baseline Rights of Way Sprayer Applications 1 Industrial/ Non Crop Sites 132 4100 Baseline Mixer/ Loader/ Applicators & Loader/ Applicators 1032 170 Baseline 523 330 Baseline M/ L/ A liquids with a Low Pressure Handwand Sprayer 0.4 Industrial/ Non Crop Sites 132 1300 Baseline 1032 1100 Baseline 523 2200 Baseline M/ L/ A liquids with a Handgun Sprayer 1 Industrial/ Non Crop Sites 132 8800 Baseline 523 320 Baseline 240 710 Baseline L/ A granules with a Belly Grinder 0.2 Industrial/ Non Crop Sites 161 1100 Baseline 523 550 Baseline 240 1200 Baseline L/ A granules with a Push type Spreader 1 Industrial/ Non Crop Sites 161 1800 Baseline 1 Amount treated is presented in acres/ day. Values are adjusted from Standard HED assumptions ( see previous ORE assessment   D307365) to reflect spot treatment uses of sodium chlorate ( i. e., Standard assumption * 20%). 2 Ranges of application rates are based on values from label extractions ( Appendix 1), BEAD's LUIS reports, and the Sodium Chlorate Use Closure Memo ( J. Guerry, 8/ 5/ 04; 10/ 13/ 04; 11/ 15/ 04). Application rates upon which the analysis is based are presented as lb ai/ acre. 3 Daily Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = [ Application Rate ( lb ai/ A) * Daily Area Treated ( A/ day) * Unit Exposure ( ug/ lb ai) * Inhalation Abs. Factor ( 100%)] / [ Body Weight ( kg) * CF ( 1000 ug/ mg)] Short/ Int. Term Inhalation MOE = Oral NOAEL ( 30 mg/ kg/ day) / Daily Inhalation Dose. HED LOC for MOE is 100. 4 Mitigation Levels Baseline: No respirator


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10121-10127]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03154]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0633; FRL-10005-41-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT80

Revisions to Appendix P to 40 CFR Part 51, Concerning Minimum
Emission Reporting Requirements in SIPs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
update a

regulation, Appendix P to 40 CFR part 51 (Appendix P), that specifies
what State Implementation Plans (SIPs) must require of sources among
four categories with respect to continuous emission monitoring,
recording, and reporting. Those four Appendix P source categories are:
Fossil fuel-fired steam generators; fluid bed catalytic cracking unit
catalyst regenerators at petroleum refineries; sulfuric acid plants;
and nitric acid plants. In particular, proposed amendments to Appendix
P would revise the minimum frequency for submitting reports of excess
emissions from ``each calendar quarter'' to ``twice per year at 6-month
intervals.'' As a result, states may, in their SIPs, establish a
semiannual reporting frequency for excess emissions at affected sources
that aligns with what the EPA has generally established as the
reporting frequency applicable to the Appendix P source categories
under more recently updated regulations, such as New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) under 40 CFR part 60. Proposed amendments also include
correction of an erroneous cross-reference in Appendix P.

DATES:
    Comments: Written comments must be received on or before March 23,
2020. Public hearings. If anyone contacts us requesting a public
hearing on or before March 9, 2020, we will hold a public hearing.
Additional information about the hearing, if one is requested, will be
published in a subsequent Federal Register document. Please refer to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the comment
period and the public hearing.
    Information collection request: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best
assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before March 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0633, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official
document and should include discussion of all points you wish to make.
The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further general information on
this proposed rule or on the Information Collection Request (ICR),
contact Ms. Lisa Sutton, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, State and Local Programs Group (C539-01), Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information on the public hearing, contact Ms.
Pam Long, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Policy Division (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected directly by this action include
states, United States (U.S.) territories, local authorities and
eligible tribes that are currently administering, or may in the future
administer, EPA-approved implementation plans (collectively
``states'').\1\ Entities potentially affected indirectly by this action
are sources categorized as fossil fuel-fired steam generators, fluid
bed catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators at petroleum
refineries, sulfuric acid plants, or nitric acid plants. For
convenience, the EPA's reference to ``affected sources'' in this
rulemaking generally refers to sources affected by SIP requirements,
i.e., those sources to which a SIP's Appendix P-specified monitoring
requirements actually apply. While all sources among the Appendix P
source categories (when not already excepted in Appendix P itself) are
potentially affected by such requirements, it is within the state's
discretion to grant an exemption in its SIP from applicability of the
Appendix P-specified monitoring requirements for certain sources. If
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA respects the unique relationship between the U.S.
government and tribal authorities and acknowledges that tribal
concerns are not interchangeable with state concerns. Under the CAA
and EPA regulations, a tribe may, but is not required to, apply for
eligibility to have a tribal implementation plan (TIP). For
convenience, the EPA refers to either ``states'' or ``air agencies''
in this rulemaking when meaning to refer in general to states, the
District of Columbia, U.S. territories, local air permitting
authorities and eligible tribes that are currently administering, or
may in the future administer, EPA-approved implementation plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking docket by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions. The proposed rule may ask you to
respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used to support your comment.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns
wherever possible, and suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for
inclusion in the public docket. If you submit any digital storage media
that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage
media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as
CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic

public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0633.

C. How can I find information about a possible hearing?

    To request a public hearing or information pertaining to a public
hearing regarding this document, please contact Ms. Pam Long, U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy
Division (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number
(919) 541-0641, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>on or before March 9,
2020. Additional information about the hearing, if one is requested,
will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document.

D. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this Federal Register document will be posted at https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/develop-air-quality-sip#guidance.

E. How is this notice of proposed rulemaking organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    C. How can I find information about a possible hearing?
    D. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    E. How is this notice of proposed rulemaking organized?
II. Overview of Proposed Action
    A. What action is the Agency proposing?
    B. What is the Agency's authority for proposing this action?
III. Historical and Regulatory Background for Appendix P
    A. State Implementation Plans and the EPA's Regulations at 40
CFR Part 51
    B. Part 51 Amended To Require Continuous Emission Monitoring
IV. Rationale for Updating Appendix P
    A. Proposed Action Comports With the EPA's Burden Reduction Rule
of 1999
    B. States Urge the EPA To Reduce Reporting Frequency for
Appendix P Source Categories
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
VII. Statutory Authority

II. Overview of Proposed Action

A. What action is the Agency proposing?

    The EPA is proposing amendments to update the data reporting
requirements specified for SIPs under Appendix P to 40 CFR part 51.
Appendix P, which the EPA promulgated in 1975, sets forth certain
minimum requirements for continuous emission monitoring that each SIP
must include in order to be approved under the provisions of 40 CFR
51.214. See 40 FR 46240 (October 6, 1975).
    The EPA proposes to revise the current specification that sources
among the four Appendix P source categories must report excess
emissions at a frequency of no less than every calendar quarter, by
changing the minimum frequency to semiannually. For example, the
reference to ``each calendar quarter'' in paragraph 4.1 of Appendix P
would be removed and replaced with a reference to ``twice per year at
6-month intervals.'' As a result, states would be allowed to establish,
in their SIPs, a reporting frequency for affected sources under
Appendix P that aligns with the reporting frequency that the EPA has
generally established under more recently updated programs applicable
to sources among the four Appendix P source categories, such as NSPS.
As described in Section III.B of this document, the EPA has generally
moved to a semiannual reporting frequency specification for sources
regulated under its regulations pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA),
e.g., in NSPS (40 CFR part 60) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (40 CFR parts 61 and 63).\2\ A
semiannual minimum reporting frequency under Appendix P would also
align with the semiannual reporting frequency required of sources
through the EPA's regulations for title V operating permits (40 CFR
parts 70 and 71).\3\ Notwithstanding these proposed revisions to
Appendix P, a source that is subject to other excess emission reporting
requirements (e.g., under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63) would be required
to comply with the applicable provisions of those rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden Reduction, Final
amendments,'' 64 FR 7457 (February 12, 1999).
    \3\ The title V permit shall require submittal of reports of any
required monitoring at least every 6 months, and all instances of
deviations from permit requirements must be clearly identified in
such reports. See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) and 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA emphasizes that the proposed amendments to Appendix P, if
finalized as proposed, would not require states to adopt these
particular changes (by revising their SIPs). When proposing in 1974 to
add Appendix P to 40 CFR part 51, the EPA stressed that Appendix P set
forth only minimum requirements and recognized that in keeping with the
basic framework of SIPs, states were allowed, even encouraged, to
develop procedures even more comprehensive than those in Appendix P.\4\
Likewise, upon promulgating Appendix P in 1975, the EPA stated that
while minimum requirements were being established, states ``may, as
they deem appropriate, expand these requirements.'' \5\ Thus, although
the relaxation in minimum reporting frequency specified for SIPs under
Appendix P being proposed would allow a state in turn to require
semiannual reporting of sources among the Appendix P source categories,
it would not obligate a state to adopt requirements for semiannual
reporting in its SIP if the state chooses to retain requirements beyond
the minimum (e.g., quarterly reporting requirements for Appendix P
source categories).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Requirements for the Preparation, Adoption and Submittal
of Implementation Plans: Emission Monitoring of Stationary Sources;
Proposed rules,'' 39 FR 32871 (September 11, 1974). See 32872/3.
    \5\ ``Part 51--Requirements for the Preparation, Adoption and
Submittal of Implementation Plans: Emission Monitoring of Stationary
Sources,'' 40 FR 46240 (October 6, 1975). See 46246/3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional amendment proposed in this action would revise one
cross-reference under Appendix P so that it refers to the appropriate
section of 40 CFR part 51. In accordance with the EPA's regulations for
SIPs concerning continuous emission monitoring, each SIP must meet
certain minimum requirements, including those specified in Appendix P.
The continuous

emission monitoring regulations of 40 CFR part 51 were moved from Sec.
51.19(e) to Sec.  51.214 as part of a 1986 rule through which the EPA
significantly restructured and consolidated its regulations for the
development of SIPs.\6\ In the notice of final rulemaking for that 1986
rule, several cross-references under Appendix P were revised. The EPA
acknowledges that the cross-reference in Appendix P under section 1.0
(which concerns contininuous emission monitoring requirements) was
changed from Sec.  51.19(e) to Sec.  51.165(b) in error, when the
intent was to change it to Sec.  51.214. The EPA now proposes to revise
section 1.0 of Appendix P so that it correctly refers to the continuous
emission monitoring regulations at Sec.  51.214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Air Quality Implementation Plans; Restructuring SIP
Preparation Regulations; Final rule,'' 51 FR 40656 (November 7,
1986). The changes to cross-references in Appendix P and Appendix S
are described at 40675.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the Agency's authority for proposing this action?

    This document is being developed under the authority of sections
110(a)(2)(F) and 301(a) of the CAA.

III. Historical and Regulatory Background for Appendix P

A. State Implementation Plans and the EPA's Regulations at 40 CFR Part
51

    The SIP is a state's plan identifying how the state will meet its
CAA requirements, such as to attain and maintain the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, each
state is required to submit a SIP for EPA approval, and the EPA is
required to evaluate and either approve or disapprove the state's
submission. The SIP (including revisions over time) contains control
measures and strategies developed through a public process and formally
adopted by the state. The elements of a SIP are prescribed in
particular under section 110 and Part D of the CAA. Of particular
relevance to this proposed rulemaking, CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) governs
requirements associated with stationary source monitoring and reporting
in the context of SIPs.
    Pursuant to CAA section 110, the EPA established procedural
requirements applicable to all states concerning the preparation,
adoption, and submission of SIPs and SIP revisions. These regulations,
initially promulgated in 1971, comprise 40 CFR part 51, ``Requirements
for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.''
Like the SIPs themselves, these regulations are periodically revised.

B. Part 51 Amended To Require Continuous Emission Monitoring

    The EPA in 1974 proposed to amend its SIP preparation regulations
under 40 CFR part 51 to require that SIPs contain legally enforceable
procedures mandating owners or operators of stationary sources to
install equipment to monitor pollutant emissions on a continuous basis
and to report the data obtained.\7\ As was explained in the 1974 notice
of proposed rulemaking, the regulations already required states to have
the legal authority to require such monitoring and recording.\8\
However, at the time that the EPA's SIP preparation regulations were
originally published, ``[t]he Agency believed that the state-of-the-art
was such that it was not prudent to require existing sources to install
[continuous monitoring] devices.'' \9\ The agency explained that, for
certain sources, ``general specifications for accuracy, reliability and
durability can be established for continuous emission monitors . . .
.'' \10\ Accordingly, the agency proposed to amend 40 CFR part 51 by
adding a new requirement that would ``require States to revise their
implementation plans to require sources to install monitoring
instruments and to report the resulting data to the appropriate State
Agency.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Requirements for the Preparation, Adoption and Submittal
of Implementation Plans: Emission Monitoring of Stationary Sources;
Proposed rules,'' 39 FR 32871 (September 11, 1974). See 32871/3.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In choosing the types of sources and pollutants listed in Appendix
P and, thus, subject to the proposed minimum requirements for
continuous emission monitoring specified for SIPs, the EPA selected
four source categories that would be covered by continuous emission
monitoring requirements and performance testing methods simultaneously
proposed under NSPS regulations pursuant to section 111 of the CAA
(i.e., under Part 60).\12\ The EPA even noted in the Appendix P
proposal that the SIP rulemaking was very closely connected with the
NSPS rulemaking. The EPA urged states and other affected parties to
consider the companion NSPS proposal as part of the Appendix P proposal
and to direct comments to the relevant portions of both proposals.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 39 FR 32871 at 32872; see also ``Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources: Emission Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Testing Methods; Proposed rules,'' 39 FR 32852
(September 11, 1974).
    \13\ 39 FR 32871 at 32872/2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1975, the EPA promulgated Appendix P on the same day it
promulgated the NSPS monitoring and performance requirements under 40
CFR part 60.\14\ In the final amendments to 40 CFR part 51, the EPA
expanded 40 CFR 51.19 (now 40 CFR 51.214) to require states to revise
their SIPs to include legally enforceable procedures requiring certain
specified categories of existing stationary sources to monitor
emissions on a continuous basis. The agency explained that requiring
``a sound program of continuous emission monitoring and reporting''
would more fully implement CAA sections 110(a)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Part 60--Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources,'' 40 FR 46250 (October 6, 1975).
    \15\ ``Part 51--Requirements for the Preparation, Adoption and
Submittal of Implementation Plans: Emission Monitoring of Stationary
Sources,'' 40 FR 46240 (October 6, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 51.19(e)(4) (now Sec.  51.214(e)) in 40 CFR specifies such
procedures to require the source owner or operator to submit
information relating to emissions and operation of the emission
monitors to the state to the extent described in Appendix P as
frequently as or more frequently than described therein.\16\ With
respect to reporting requirements, Appendix P specifies under paragraph
4.1 that the SIP ``shall require owners or operators of facilities
required to install continuous monitoring systems to submit a written
report of excess emissions for each calendar quarter and the nature and
cause of the excess emissions, if known.'' \17\ At the time of
promulgation in 1975, this specification in Appendix P of quarterly
reporting as the minimum frequency was by design aligned with the
quarterly reporting frequency generally specified for new sources under
Part 60. This ``report of excess emissions,'' like the corollary
``excess emissions and monitoring systems performance report''
specified under 40 CFR part 60 (see Sec.  60.7(c)), should be submitted
by the owner or operator whether or not excess emissions occurred
within the reporting period (see Appendix P, paragraph 4.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 40 FR 46240 at 46247/2.
    \17\ Id. at 46249/1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each state is required to include all of the Appendix P-specified
requirements in its SIP, including the monitoring requirements listed
in Appendix P under section 1.1, ``Applicability,'' for sources
specified under Appendix P at a minimum.\18\ However, section 1.2,
``Exemptions,'' provides that a state may exempt certain sources from
applicability of those monitoring requirements. When proposing in 1974
to amend the 40 CFR part 51 regulations

to include minimum requirements for continuous emission monitoring, the
EPA noted that the 40 CFR part 51 amendments were not intended to
necessarily apply to new sources, since the 40 CFR part 60 (NSPS)
requirements would apply to those new sources.\19\ Therefore, in
accordance with Appendix P, paragraph 1.2.1, a state may choose to
include in its SIP a provision to grant an exemption from the Appendix
P-specified monitoring requirements for a source that is subject to an
NSPS promulgated in 40 CFR part 60. Similarly, in accordance with
paragraph 1.2.2, a state may choose to include in its SIP a provision
to grant an exemption for a source that is not subject to an applicable
emission standard of the approved SIP. As the EPA clarified in the 40
CFR part 51 amendments, Appendix P-specified continuous emission
monitors ``are not required for sources unless such sources are subject
to an applicable emission limitation of an approved SIP.'' \20\ In
addition, in accordance with paragraph 1.2.3, a state was allowed to
include in its SIP a provision granting an exemption for certain
affected sources that were scheduled for retirement within 5 years
after inclusion of the Appendix P monitoring requirements in its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id. at 46246/3.
    \19\ 39 FR 32871 at 32872/2.
    \20\ 40 FR 46240 at 46246/2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Rationale for Updating Appendix P

A. Proposed Action Comports With the EPA's Burden Reduction Rule of
1999

    As of 1975, when the continuous emission monitoring specifications
for SIPs under 40 CFR part 51 and for NSPS under 40 CFR part 60 were
promulgated, sources affected under either set of regulations were
required to submit continuous emission monitor reports of their excess
emissions and other information on a quarterly basis. Over the next
many years, the EPA expanded the types of sources to be regulated
pursuant to CAA sections 111 (for NSPS) and 112 (for NESHAP), and those
later regulations (e.g., NSPS under 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP under 40
CFR parts 61 and 63) increasingly allowed sources to submit such
reports on a less frequent basis, semiannually or in some cases even
annually. In the agency's experience, semiannual reporting provides
sufficiently timely information to ensure compliance and enable
adequate enforcement of applicable requirements, while imposing less
burden on the affected industry than would quarterly reporting. Thus,
in 1999, the EPA promulgated a Burden Reduction Rule,\21\ which, among
other revisions, revised the NSPS reporting frequency, with a few
exceptions,\22\ to semiannually for nearly all source categories. As a
result, the reporting frequency requirements under NSPS regulations,
including for the four Appendix P source categories, no longer aligned
with the reporting requirements specified in Appendix P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden Reduction, Final
amendments,'' 64 FR 7457 (February 12, 1999).
    \22\ For most source categories, the reporting requirements
under NSPS and NESHAP General Provisions apply. However, a minority
of the NSPS regulations do not adopt by reference the Part 60
General Provisions for reporting requirements, instead explicitly
specifying requirements for the affected source category. Certain
reporting requirements, for particular pollutants and particular
source categories, were not revised in the Burden Reduction Rule.
For example, for those electric utility steam generating units
subject to NSPS subpart Da (which also fall under Appendix P's
``fossil fuel-fired steam generators'' source category), the
regulation continues even today to require that opacity levels in
excess of the applicable opacity standard and the date of such
excesses are to be submitted (reported) to the Administrator each
calendar quarter; see 40 CFR 60.51Da(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As rationale for the Burden Reduction Rule, the EPA noted at
proposal that its most recent NSPS and NESHAP had moved almost
exclusively to semiannual reporting as a standard approach.\23\ Thus,
also in the General Provisions for 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63, the
Burden Reduction Rule changed the reporting frequency requirements, to
conform them to recently promulgated NSPS and NESHAP regulations. The
EPA estimated a 20-percent reduction in reporting burden on sources
under a typical rule.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ``Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden Reduction; Proposed
revisions to rules and notice of public hearing,'' 61 FR 47840
(September 11, 1996). See 61 FR 47844/2.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted by the EPA in the Burden Reduction Rule,\25\ and as
recognized in Section II.A of this document, the EPA's regulations for
title V operating permits also specify semiannual reporting by
sources.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 64 FR 7457 at 7458/3.
    \26\ The title V permit shall require submittal of reports of
any required monitoring at least every 6 months, and all instances
of deviations from permit requirements must be clearly identified in
such reports. See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) and 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. States Urge the EPA To Reduce Reporting Frequency for Appendix P
Source Categories

    With this proposed rulemaking, the EPA is seeking to reasonably
resolve a longstanding inconsistency in its reporting requirements for
certain categories of sources between (i) those specified as the
minimum for Appendix P source categories in the SIP context (under 40
CFR part 51) and (ii) those prescribed for similar sources through NSPS
(under part 60) or NESHAP (under 40 CFR parts 61 and 63). The EPA
acknowledges that two states in particular, South Carolina and
Tennessee, have been urging the EPA to amend the Appendix P
specification for reporting frequency. South Carolina and Tennessee
each have sources among the Appendix P source categories that cannot be
exempted from the Appendix P-specified monitoring requirements under
any of the exemptions available under Appendix P section 1.2
(Exemptions). While such sources are subject to SIP emission
limitations, they are not subject to any NSPS because they commenced
operation before the applicability dates of those standards. States
have argued that the rationale on which the EPA has relied to decrease
the minimum reporting frequency over time for sources regulated under
NSPS, for example, is the same rationale on which the EPA should rely
to decrease the minimum reporting frequency that Appendix P specifies
for 40 CFR part 51 sources. Materials submitted by South Carolina and
Tennessee, including their general arguments in support of--and in
advance of--such action, are available in the docket for this
rulemaking. The EPA is including those materials in the docket because
they serve to illustrate how the proposed amendments to Appendix P
might manifest in a SIP.

V. Environmental Justice Considerations

    A change in the specified minimum frequency with which affected
sources must submit continuous monitoring system data reports, as a
result of the proposed revisions to Appendix P, is not expected to
result in any change in the pollutant emissions from any of the
affected sources. Therefore, the EPA believes that this action will not
have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous
populations.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2590.01. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this proposed rule, and it is
briefly summarized here.
    The EPA is proposing to update a regulation, Appendix P to 40 CFR
part 51, that specifies what SIPs must require of sources among four
categories with respect to continuous emission monitoring, recording,
and reporting. In particular, the proposed amendments to Appendix P
would generally relax a ``minimum reporting frequency'' specification
for SIPs from quarterly to semiannually. The subject rule would revise
only the minimum requirement, and so the rule does not require that any
state change the actual reporting frequency requirement in its SIP that
applies to Appendix P sources. Therefore, to comply with the subject
rule's requirements, each state may choose to prepare and submit a SIP
revision but is not required to do so, and so the information
collection activities in this proposed rule are voluntary for the
states as respondents. The EPA has determined that the requested
information collection (SIP submissions) would not include any
confidential information. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.116, ``Data
availability,'' each state must retain and make available for public
inspection all detailed data and calculations used in the preparation
of its SIP and SIP revisions. The EPA has the responsibility and
statutory authority under CAA section 110(a) to assure that the states,
through their SIPs, meet the requirements of the CAA. The regulatory
burden under the information collection is attributed to states'
preparation and submission of SIP revisions, a type of reporting
burden. For purposes of estimating the paperwork burden, the EPA
assumes that each of 56 entities, including states, the District of
Columbia, and U.S. territories, would make a single SIP submission that
includes an Appendix P-related provision within 3 years after the
effective date of the rule, corresponding to the requested 3-year
collection period. There are no capital costs or operation and
maintenance costs attributed to the proposed rule.
    Respondents/affected entities: All states.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 56.
    Frequency of response: One-time.
    Total estimated burden: 3,080 hours per year (or 55 hours per
respondent per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $191,200 per year (or $3,414 per respondent
per year), with no capital cost and no operation and maintenance cost.
    The derivation of these estimates is described in greater detail in
the Supporting Statement for the initial, rule-related ICR for
``Revisions to Appendix P to 40 CFR part 51'' that is included in the
docket for this rulemaking.
    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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than March 23,
2020. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. Any agency may certify that
a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to this rule. This action will not impose any
requirements on small entities. Instead, this action leaves to each
state the choice as to whether to reflect in its SIP a reduction in
minimum reporting frequency specified for certain categories of
stationary sources regulated under the CAA.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. 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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, since no tribe has to develop a TIP under
these regulatory revisions. Furthermore, these regulation revisions do
not affect the relationship or distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. The
CAA and the Tribal Air Rule establish the relationship of the federal
government and tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and
these revisions to the regulations do nothing to modify that
relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because the reduction in minimum reporting
frequency specified for certain categories of sources regulated under
the CAA will have no effect on any obligation to comply with emission
limitations in SIPs, and so it does not concern an environmental health
risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. This action merely allows states the
option to reflect in their SIPs a reduction in minimum reporting
frequency specified for certain categories of stationary sources
regulated under the CAA.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous populations as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This action merely allows states the option to reflect in their
SIPs a reduction in minimum reporting frequency specified for certain
categories of stationary sources regulated under the CAA, which will
have no effect on any obligation to comply with emission limitations in
SIPs.

VII. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by CAA section
101 et seq. (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Opacity, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Sulfur oxides,
Transportation, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 7, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 51 is proposed
to be amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

APPENDIX P TO PART 51--MINIMUM EMISSION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS--
[AMENDED]

0
2. In appendix P to part 51:
0
a. Paragraph 1.0 is amended by removing the reference to ``40 CFR
51.165(b).'' and adding in its place a reference to ``40 CFR 51.214.'';
0
b. Paragraph 4.1 is amended by removing the words ``each calendar
quarter'' and adding in their place the words ``twice per year at 6-
month intervals'';
0
c. Paragraph 4.6 is amended by removing the words ``in the quarterly
summaries, and'' and adding in their place the words ``as specified in
paragraph 4.1 of this appendix and'';
0
d. Paragraph 5.2.3 is amended by removing the words ``quarterly
summary.'' and adding in their place the words ``reports submitted as
specified in paragraph 4.1 of this appendix.'';
0
e. Paragraph 5.3.3 is amended by removing the words ``quarterly
summary.'' and adding in their place the words ``reports submitted as
specified in paragraph 4.1 of this appendix.''

[FR Doc. 2020-03154 Filed 2-20-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81198-81199]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27535]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ21-4-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on December 2, 2020, pursuant to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 35.28(e) and 18 CFR 385.207, the Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA), submitted revisions to its non-jurisdictional
Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) and petitions the Commission for
a declaratory order finding that these modifications to WAPA's OATT
substantially conform to, or are superior to, the Commission's pro
forma OATT

and that these WAPA modifications satisfy the requirements for
reciprocity status.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 4, 2021.

    Dated: December 9, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27535 Filed 12-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 52958-52959]
[DOCID:fr15oc09-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 7, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1049-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits revisions to the Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating
Reserve Markets Tariff.
    Filed Date: 10/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091005-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1462-000.
    Applicants: Lake Benton Power Partners II, LLC.
    Description: NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Submits Lake Benton
Power Partners II, LLC Amendment to Request for Authorization to Sell
Energy and Capacity at Market-based Rates and Waiver of the 60-day
Requirement.
    Filed Date: 10/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091007-5036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1473-002.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Northwestern Corporation submits replacement page to
the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement showing the amended
Section 30.4 in the context of the unchanged Section 30.2 etc.
    Filed Date: 10/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091007-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1-000.
    Applicants: High Majestic Wind Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: High Majestic Wind Energy Center, LLC submits request
for authorization to sell energy and capacity at market based rates.
    Filed Date: 10/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091007-0153.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2-000.
    Applicants: Butler Ridge Wind Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Butler Ridge Wind Energy Center, LLC submits
application for authorization to make market-based sales of energy,
capacity and certain ancillary services under a market-based rate
tariff.
    Filed Date: 10/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091007-0152.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3-000.
    Applicants: Wessington Wind Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Wessington Wind Energy Center, LLC submits application
for authorization to make market-based sales of energy, capacity and
certain ancillary services under a market-based rate tariff.
    Filed Date: 10/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091007-0151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-35-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Public Service Company of Colorado et al submits the
PSC0 Electric Coordination Service Tariff FERC Electric, Original
Volume 2 etc.
    Filed Date: 10/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091007-0083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 27, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24795 Filed 10-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 166)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44335]
[DOCID:fr28au09-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0079; FRL-8944-9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope
Valley Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Antelope Valley
Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from leaking components at industrial
facilities such as petroleum refineries and chemical manufacturing
plants. We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act). At the same time, we are also approving a Negative Declaration
and removing rules from the SIP.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by September 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0079a, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system,
and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to
EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as
part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information
may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g.,
copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either
location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4111<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rules: Rule 1173--Fugitive Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds,
Rule 465--Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems, Rule 466--Pumps and
Compressors, 466.1--Valves and Flanges, and Rule 467--Pressure Relief
Devices. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register,
we are approving amendments to Rule 1173 and removing Rules 465, 466,
466.1, and 467 from the SIP in a direct final action without prior
proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial.
If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in
subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we
receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: May 13, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-20828 Filed 8-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8300-8303]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3027]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0041; FRL-9264-1]

Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions
for Particulate Matter, PM-10, Maricopa County (Phoenix) PM-10
Nonattainment Area, AZ

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to find that Arizona failed to make
a state implementation plan (SIP) submittal required under the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the Maricopa County (Phoenix) nonattainment
area (Maricopa area) for particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM-
10). The Maricopa area is a serious PM-10 nonattainment area which,
having failed to attain the PM-10 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) by its required statutory attainment deadline, is
subject to section 189(d) of the CAA. For such areas, section 189(d)
requires that states submit within 12 months after the applicable
attainment date, plan revisions which provide for attainment of the PM-
10 NAAQS, and from the date of such submission until attainment, for an
annual reduction of PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions within the area
of not less than 5 percent of the amount of such emissions as reported
in the most recent inventory prepared for the area.
    Arizona submitted a section 189(d) plan for the Maricopa area on
December 21, 2007, and EPA proposed action on this plan on September 9,
2010. On January 25, 2011, prior to final action on the plan by EPA,
Arizona withdrew the submitted plan from the Agency's consideration. As
a result of the withdrawal, EPA is today finding that Arizona failed to
make the submittal required for the Maricopa area under section 189(d)
of the Act.
    This action triggers the 18-month clock for mandatory application
of sanctions and 2-year clock for a federal implementation plan (FIP)
under the Act. This action is consistent with the CAA mechanism for
assuring SIP submissions.

DATES: Effective Date: This action was effective as of February 14,
2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Nudd, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Division (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The NAAQS are standards for certain ambient air pollutants set by
EPA to protect public health and welfare. PM-10 is among the ambient
air pollutants for which EPA has established health-based standards.
PM-10 causes adverse health effects by penetrating deep in the lungs,
aggravating the cardiopulmonary system. Children, the elderly, and
people with asthma and heart conditions are the most vulnerable.

    On July 1, 1987 EPA revised the health-based NAAQS (52 FR 24672),
replacing the standards for total suspended particulates with new
standards applying only to particulate matter up to ten microns in
diameter (PM-10). At that time, EPA established two PM-10 standards,
annual standards and 24-hour standards. Effective December 18, 2006,
EPA revoked the annual PM-10 standards but retained the 24-hour PM-10
standards. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 24-hour PM-10 standards
of 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) are attained when the
expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average
concentration above 150 [micro]g/m\3\, as determined in accordance with
appendix K to 40 CFR part 50, is equal to or less than one. 40 CFR 50.6
and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
    On the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA
or the Act), many areas, including the Maricopa area, meeting the
qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the amended Act were
designated nonattainment by operation of law. 56 FR 11101 (March 15,
1991). The Maricopa area is located in the eastern portion of Maricopa
County and encompasses the cities of Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe,
Chandler, Glendale, as well as 17 other jurisdictions and
unincorporated County lands. The nonattainment area also includes the
town of Apache Junction in Pinal County. EPA codified the boundaries of
the Maricopa area at 40 CFR 81.303.
    Once an area is designated nonattainment for PM-10, section 188 of
the CAA outlines the process for classifying the area as moderate or
serious and establishes the area's attainment deadline. In accordance
with section 188(a), at the time of designation, all PM-10
nonattainment areas, including the Maricopa area, were initially
classified as moderate.
    A moderate PM-10 nonattainment area must be reclassified to serious
PM-10 nonattainment by operation of law if EPA determines after the
applicable attainment date that, based on air quality, the area failed
to attain by that date. CAA sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2). On May 10,
1996, EPA reclassified the Maricopa area as a serious PM-10
nonattainment area. 61 FR 21372.
    As a serious PM-10 nonattainment area, the Maricopa area acquired a
new attainment deadline of no later than December 31, 2001. CAA section
188(c)(2). However CAA section 188(e) allows states to apply for up to
a 5-year extension of that deadline if certain conditions are met.
Arizona requested an attainment date extension under CAA section 188(e)
from December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2006. On July 25, 2002, EPA
approved the serious area PM-10 plan for the Maricopa area and granted
Arizona's request to extend the attainment date for the area to
December 31, 2006. 67 FR 48718. This final action, as well as the two
proposals preceding it, provide a more detailed discussion of the
history of PM-10 planning in the Maricopa area. See 65 FR 19964 (April
13, 2000) and 66 FR 50252 (October 2, 2001).
    On June 6, 2007, EPA found that the Maricopa area failed to attain
the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 2006 (72 FR 31183) and required
the submittal of a new plan meeting the requirements of section 189(d)
by December 31, 2007.
    On December 19, 2007, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)
adopted the ``MAG 2007 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa
County Nonattainment Area'' (189(d) plan). On December 21, 2007 the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted the 189(d)
plan. MAG adopted and ADEQ submitted this SIP revision in order to
address the CAA requirements in section 189(d).
    CAA section 110(k)(1) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP
submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also
provides that any plan that has not been affirmatively determined to be
complete or incomplete shall become complete within 6 months by
operation of law. EPA's completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. The 189(d) plan submittal became complete by operation
of law on June 21, 2008.
    EPA proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove the
189(d) plan on September 9, 2010 (75 FR 54806). On January 25, 2011,
prior to any final EPA action, Arizona withdrew the 189(d) plan from
the Agency's consideration.

II. Final Action

A. Finding of Failure To Submit Required SIP Revisions

    If Arizona does not submit the required plan revisions within 18
months of the effective date of today's rulemaking, pursuant to CAA
section 179(a) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA
section 179(b) will be applied in the affected area. If the State has
still not made a complete submittal 6 months after the offset sanction
is imposed, then the highway funding sanction will apply in the
affected area, in accordance with 40 CFR 52.31.\1\ The 18-month clock
will stop and the sanctions will not take effect if, within 18 months
after the date of the finding, EPA finds that the State has made a
complete submittal addressing the 189(d) PM-10 requirements for the
Maricopa area. In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA
must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) no later than 2
years after a finding under section 179(a) unless EPA takes final
action to approve the submittal within 2 years of EPA's finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a 1994 rulemaking, EPA established the Agency's selection
of the sequence of these two sanctions: The offset sanction under
section 179(b)(2) shall apply at 18 months, followed 6 months later
by the highway sanction under section 179(b)(1) of the Act. EPA does
not choose to deviate from this presumptive sequence in this
instance. For more details on the timing and implementation of the
sanctions, see 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994), promulgating 40 CFR
52.31, ``Selection of sequence of mandatory sanctions for findings
made pursuant to section 179 of the Clean Air Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Effective Date Under the Administrative Procedures Act

    This final action is effective on February 14, 2011.
    Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3),
an agency rulemaking may take effect before 30 days after the date of
publication in the Federal Register if an agency has good cause to
mandate an earlier effective date. Today's action concerns SIP
revisions that are already overdue and the State has been aware of
applicable provisions of the CAA relating to overdue SIPs. In addition,
today's action simply starts a ``clock'' that will not result in
sanctions for 18 months, and that the State may ``turn off'' by a
complete SIP submittal addressing the 189(d) PM-10 requirements for the
Maricopa area. These reasons support an effective date prior to 30 days
after the date of publication.

C. Notice-and-Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act

    This final agency action is not subject to the notice-and-comment
requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 533(b). EPA believes that because of
the limited time provided to make findings of failure to submit
regarding SIP submissions, Congress did not intend such findings to be
subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, to the extent such
findings are subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, EPA invokes the
good cause exception pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Notice
and comment are unnecessary because no EPA judgment is involved in
making a nonsubstantive finding of failure to submit SIPs required by
the

CAA. Furthermore, providing notice and comment would be impracticable
because of the limited time provided under the statute for making such
determinations. Finally, notice and comment would be contrary to the
public interest because it would divert Agency resources from the
critical substantive review of submitted SIPs. See 58 FR 51270, 51272,
note 17 (October 1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 39853 (August 4, 1994).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because findings of failure to submit required
SIP revisions do not by themselves create any new requirements.
Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's action does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. The CAA provision discussed in this rule requires
states to submit SIPs. This rule merely finds that Arizona has not met
that requirement. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule 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, because it
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely finds
that Arizona has failed to make a submission that is required under the
Clean Air Act.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (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 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 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 of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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.
section 804(2). This rule will be effective February 14, 2011.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 15, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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)).

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

    Dated: January 3, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-3027 Filed 2-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P