1 ECOS/ EPA Incentives Workgroup Subgroup 3 Evaluation of Regulatory and Statutory Options for Improving and Streamlining the Implementation Process for Incentives I. Background The purpose of Subgroup # 3 is to evaluate potential regulatory and statutory options for improving and streamlining the implementation process for incentives. A continuing challenge for both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and states in promoting performancebased programs is whether to employ existing statutory and regulatory authority, or to advocate adoption of new authorizing legislation or regulations to remove barriers to innovation and create incentives. Two areas of focus were identified for this group:

1. Identifying existing and proposed statutory and regulatory paths to authorize and facilitate the development of incentives for performance based programs. 2. Analyzing barriers to incentives implementation to improve the delivery of incentives to interested members.

II. Research Conducted To support the work of improving the incentives process, the group conducted three research tasks including a review of state and federal authorizing legislation for performance based environmental leadership programs; and a survey of state experience in implementing Performance Track ( PT) incentives.

State Authorizing Legislation for Performance Based Programs We first reviewed the authorizing statutes for performance based environmental leadership programs in 16 states ( see Attachment 1 for a summary). Based on this review, state legislative activity regarding performance based programs begins in 1996 and continues to the present. Incentives specified in state statutes include: recognition and awards; self monitoring, reporting, and certification; consolidated and simplified reporting and monitoring; deferred enforcement and waiver of certain civil penalties provided that violations discovered in a self audit are corrected promptly and are not serious; preferred vendor status; priority for funding; financial credits or rebates applied against permit fees; emission credits in exchange for beyondcompliance performance; low priority inspections; and alternative compliance approaches.

Alternative compliance approaches require a demonstration of equivalent or better environmental performance to qualify for this incentive. States have experimented with environmental management systems as an alternative to ensuring compliance with existing requirements, provided alternative air permitting limits on a sector basis, and offered members of leadership programs the opportunity to advance an alternative compliance approach that meets the requirements and approval of the regulatory agency. Subgroup # 2' s report on " Better Incentives" provides additional state and federal examples of alternative compliance approaches. 2 Federal Proposed Legislation to Advance Performance Based Programs At the federal level, so called " Second Generation" legislation was introduced in 1997 and 1999 in the U. S. Senate and U. S. House, respectively. Both the Senate and House bills proposed to authorize EPA to enter into innovative environmental agreements to encourage better or superior environmental performance and results. These bills are still in committee.

State Experience in Implementing Performance Track Incentives We contacted states to understand the drivers and challenges associated with state adoption of the PT regulatory incentives and their implementation ( see Attachment 2 for a summary). Of the 13 states identified on our list as having implemented one or both of the PT incentives, we conducted interviews with Colorado, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. Our findings from this outreach include: ( 1) adoption of the incentive rule changes does not appear to be an obstacle to implementation; ( 2) the need for a working relationship and good communication between the performance based programs and the media staff is key to promoting and implementing incentives at the facility level; ( 3) a limited number of PT members are eligible and interested in the incentives; ( 4) there is state interest in a mechanism for providing PT incentives to members of state leadership programs; and ( 5) the level of engagement by EPA Regional staff in incentives implementation varies considerably.

III. Recommendations Our recommendations are separated into short term and long term projects. The short   term recommendations tend to focus more on making incentives easier to implement once they've been created. These recommendations have been incorporated in Subgroup 1' s Draft Report: A System for Identifying, Developing, and Implementing Incentives for Performance Track and State Programs.

The long term recommendations are just that and will require a commitment well beyond 2005. Including these recommendations here is intended more to keep the ideas on the radar screen than to take immediate action.

A. Short  Term Program Awareness Packages for Media Offices:

Based on research concerning implementation issues encountered with the recent PT RCRA and MACT incentives in various states, there is a general lack of awareness of PT and/ or state performance based leadership programs within the various media programs ( air, water, waste, etc). It is our recommendation that a communications package be prepared for distribution to regional PT and state performance program representatives. This package would be designed to assist PT and state performance program representatives to enhance awareness among media program staff and increase communications between key stakeholders. It could include information on key contact personnel, resources for additional assistance, templates for educational materials and/ or 3 a presentation on PT and state programs that could be customized to explain the benefits of the program to different audiences.

Incentives Communications Packages for EPA Regional and State Staff:

Based on research concerning implementation issues encountered with the recent PT RCRA and MACT incentives in various states, it is also recommended that communications packages should be prepared for regional PT and state performance program representatives in connection with the launching of a new incentive. Packages could include a summary of the incentive, recommended process( es) for implementation, a key contact within EPA if problems should arise, list of members eligible for the incentive and a fact sheet for eligible members. Communication packages will need to be tailored to the type of incentive and may not always require the same materials.

In addition to providing communications packages to EPA Regional and State staff, it would help states' PT outreach efforts if EPA were to send incentives information directly to eligible PT facilities as well, particularly in states where ongoing contact with facilities is infrequent either because no state performance based programs exists or because there is limited state support for PT.

Model Legislation for States:

A review of state performance based leadership programs revealed that state legislatures have often included specific authorizing authority for developing incentives, including alternative compliance methods, as part of performance based programs. State environmental agencies, therefore, are granted the requisite authority to reward members of their leadership programs. Ideally, similar legislation at the federal level would establish a foundation upon which to build and further the cause of more PT incentives faster. However, this may be more of a long term solution.

To encourage other states to adopt legislation that authorizes performance based programs and incentives, we recommend preparation of a model state statute. This model legislation could take the best from existing state performance based program legislation such as authority for developing incentives, alternative compliance methods, and eligibility for, and termination of, incentives. In addition, the model legislation could create a path for state performance based programs to satisfy PT program requirements, thereby creating the potential for members in state programs to be eligible for PT incentives. 4 B. Long Term Enabling Act Advocates of legislative solutions, as opposed to regulatory solutions, argue that uncertain statutory foundations constrain innovation, increase transaction costs, 1 and leave industry vulnerable to potential EPA enforcement action and citizen lawsuits. Authorization of the PT program at the federal level, including setting the stage for incentive development and alternative compliance methods with such authorization being extended to any equivalent state performance based program could remove barriers to innovation and further creation of incentives allowing for improved environmental outcomes that cannot be achieved through the traditional means.

At the federal level, so called " Second Generation" legislation was introduced in 1997 and 1999 in the U. S. Senate and U. S. House, respectively. Both the Senate and House bills would authorize EPA to enter into innovative environmental agreements to encourage better or superior environmental performance and results, thereby:

( 1) eliminating any legal uncertainty regarding EPA's authority to implement innovative programs, such as the Performance Track program; and ( 2) protecting participating companies from lawsuits.

Both bills make clear that the authority granted to EPA to modify or waive requirements would not include contravention of the " specific terms" of an existing statute. Thus, such an ' innovations' statute is intended to supplement, not replace, existing environmental statutes. Both of these bills are currently still in Congressional committees. It will require renewed political interest to garner support to move these legislative initiatives, or similar proposals, forward.

Equivalency of PT with State Programs:

It is our recommendation that states are granted authority to extend PT incentives to state leadership program members. This would require EPA to review state performancebased programs to determine whether a program is equivalent to the acceptance and retention standards for PT, or allow states to demonstrate equivalency based on specified criteria. This may become a short term goal on its own ( pilot project) and/ or it may be combined with the legislation recommendation above for a longer term solution.

1 Blackman and Mazurek provide evidence that the cost to firms, regulators, and other stakeholders of developing site specific environmental regulations to support innovation can be substantial. See Blackman, Allen and Mazurek, Janice, " The Cost of Developing Site Specific Environmental Regulations: Evidence from EPA's Project XL," Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 99 35 REV, March 2000. 5 Draft Action Steps for Improving and Streamlining the Incentives Implementation Process Step in Process Who is Responsible Timeframe/ comments Short Term Recommendations 1. Develop program awareness packages for media offices. Performance Track team; State programs By end of calendar year.

2. Prepare incentives communications packages for EPA Regional and State staff. Performance Track team; State programs Within 2 months of finalizing an incentive.

3. Model legislation for States. Performance Track team with State input and review. By end of calendar year.

Long Term Recommendations 1. Consider seeking support to re introduce federal legislation for performance based programs. Performance Track team and EPA management As appropriate; coordinated 2. Develop process for establishing equivalency of state performance based programs to extend PT incentives to state leadership program members. Performance Track team; OGC and OECA; State programs As appropriate; coordinated 6 Attachment 1 State Performance Based Environmental Leadership Programs: Summary of Incentives Authorized by State Legislation To support the EPA/ State Incentives workgroup, we reviewed the authorizing statutes for performance based environmental leadership programs in 16 states. In addition, we include three states in which the leadership programs were created pursuant to a gubernatorial executive order ( Delaware), a Commissioner's policy ( New York), or legislation that is in process ( Michigan). Based on this review, state legislative activity regarding performance based programs begins in 1996 and continues to the present ( see Table 1).

Table 1: Date of State Legislation Authorizing Performance Based Program State Date of Passage of Legislation Name of Performance Based Program Arizona 2000 Voluntary Environmental Performance Program California 1999 Voluntary Pilot Program 1998 Environmental Leadership Program Colorado 2004 Environmental Management System Permit Program Connecticut 1999 Exemplary Environmental Management Systems Delaware 2003 Executive Order Principles for Responsible Industry ( PRIDE)

2000 Alternative Methods of Regulatory Permitting 2002 Citrus Juice Processing Facilities Florida 2004 Environmental Award Program Illinois 1996 Environmental Management System Agreement Kentucky 2005 Program under development Maine 2000 Environmental Leadership Program Michigan 2005 Senate bill passed Clean Corporate Citizen Program Minnesota XL Permit Project Minnesota 1996 Environmental Improvement Program New Hampshire 1998 Enhanced Environmental Performance Agreements New York 2004 Commissioner's Policy New York Environmental Leaders Oregon 1997 Green Permits Program South Carolina 2002 Environmental Excellence Program 1998 Regulatory Flexibility Order Environmental Management Systems September 2001 Performance Based Regulation December 2001 Texas Environmental Management System Program Texas 2003 Strategically Directed Regulatory Structure Virginia 2005 Virginia Environmental Excellence Program West Virginia 2004 Environmental Excellence Program Wisconsin 2004 Environmental Results Program 7 In particular, we reviewed the incentives that are specifically authorized in these states' legislation. We focus on statutorily authorized incentives, rather than incentives created administratively, to understand the types of incentives supported by state legislatures and to evaluate creative prototypes that might be more widely used at the state or federal levels. Below we provide some highlights of our evaluation of these statutes and also attach a table that provides the specifics for each state including whether the authorizing legislation is permanent ( or sunsets after a certain period of time), a brief description of the performance based program and a list of specific incentives, funding sources if available, and a web link to the legislation and/ or the program ( see Table 2).

Types of Incentives Included in State Statutes Incentives specified in state statutes include: recognition and awards; self monitoring, reporting, and certification; expedited review and processing of permit applications; single point of contact support; consolidated and simplified reporting and monitoring; deferred enforcement and waiver of certain civil penalties provided that violations discovered in a self audit are corrected promptly and are not serious; preferred vendor status; priority for funding; financial credits or rebates applied against permit fees; emission credits in exchange for beyondcompliance performance; low priority inspections; and alternative compliance approaches. This review demonstrates a keen interest by state legislatures in promoting performance based environmental programs with incentives for participants. We have not evaluated, however, how many of these incentives are being implemented in active programs, the specifics of each incentive, nor to what degree members are benefiting from them.

Alternative Compliance Approaches Many states offer alternative compliance approaches to environmental leaders in lieu of conventional regulatory and permitting systems. In all cases, equivalent or better environmental performance must be demonstrated; whereas the mechanisms to bind the parties differ by state. In some states, variances or waivers are available, and in others, a consolidated permitting agreement or participation contract is agreed upon and executed by the participant and the environmental agency. Incentives that offer alternative compliance approaches include the three categories below, together with the state( s) that offer each category:

1. Environmental Management System Agreements/ Permits: these agreements or permits allow participants to use an environmental management system as an alternative approach to ensure compliance with existing requirements.   Colorado's EMS Permit Program   Illinois' EMS Agreement 2. Sector Based Alternative Air Permitting: this approach provides alternative air permitting limits in lieu of air operating and construction permits.   Florida's Citrus Juice Processors 8 3. Alternative Compliance Approaches to Meeting Existing Requirements: this incentive offers members of performance based programs the opportunity to advance an alternative compliance approach that meets the requirements and approval of the regulatory agency.   Florida's Alternative Methods of Regulatory Permitting;   Minnesota's XL Permit Project;   Minnesota's Flexible EMS Air Permit;   New Hampshire's Enhanced Environmental Performance Agreements;   Oregon's Green Permits Program;   South Carolina's Environmental Excellence Program;   Texas' Regulatory Flexibility Order;   Texas' EMS Program;   Texas' Strategically Directed Regulatory Structure;   Virginia's Environmental Excellence Program; and   Wisconsin's Environmental Results Program.

Conclusion and Next Steps This review demonstrates that state legislatures have often included specific authorizing authority for developing incentives as part of performance based programs. State environmental agencies, therefore, are granted the requisite authority to reward members of their leadership programs. Alternative compliance approaches, for example, appear to hold promise for innovation and may provide models for performance based programs at the federal level. However, such approaches may prove to have significant transaction costs. To better understand how these incentives have been applied in practice and the benefits and costs associated with each incentive, additional investigations of state programs and interviews of state staff and program members would be necessary. 9 Table 2: SUMMARY OF STATE STATUTES AUTHORIZING PERFORMANCE BASED ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM State Environmental Agency Type of Authority ( Perm/ Temp) Authorized Activity ( including Incentives) Funding ( Dedicated or Annual Appropriation) Reference Voluntary Environmental Performance Program:

  Authorizes ADEQ to enter into cooperative agreements with eligible participants with EMS, procedures to achieve and maintain compliance,

mandatory training for employees, annual evaluations, and system of verifiable measures to demonstrate compliance.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ) August 17, 2000 signed by the Governor, Senate Bill 1321, Chapter 263,

amending Title 49,

Chapter 1 and adding Article 5, § § 49 171 to 49 178. Program terminates on December 31, 2004. Incentives:

  Formal public recognition by the Governor, including preferred vendor status, awards, public announcements, and press releases.

  Self monitoring, reporting, and certification, or third party certification   Accelerated review and processing of permit applications   single point of contact for permitting   Consolidation and simplification of reporting and monitoring requirements   Extension of permit terms up to maximum allowed by law   Total or partial waiver of civil penalties after cooperative agreement signed, provided certain exceptions are not triggered. § 49 177 of the legislation states that donations made for the purpose of funding this program shall be made directly to the State Treasurer. http:// www. azleg. state. az. us/ legtext/ 44 leg/ 2r/ laws/ 0263. htm Voluntary Pilot Program:

  Establish no more than 8 pilots to evaluate whether use of EMS increases public health and environmental protection beyond conventional permitting and provides better public information.

  Voluntary program   No waiver of existing requirements.

  Explore regulatory track for high performing organizations with the following criteria:

( 1) compliance with all applicable regulatory standards must be assured,

with preference to be given to systems that achieve performance significantly beyond that required by existing law;

( 2) information accessible to the public should be enhanced; and ( 3) system should be simpler and more efficient means of producing better environmental results and information; thereby providing significant value to agencies, public, and the regulated community.

California Environmental Protection Agency July 6, 1999 Assembly Bill 1102 ( Stats. 1999, Ch. 65)

codified in Public Resources Code ( PRC), § 71045 et seq. ( AM 1102).

Sunset January 1,

2002 Incentives:

  Potential cost savings associated with EMS adoption, but no specific incentives provided in legislation. annual appropriation http:// www. calepa. ca. gov/ EMS/ Public ations/ 2003/ LegReport/ 10 Table 2: SUMMARY OF STATE STATUTES AUTHORIZING PERFORMANCE BASED ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM State Environmental Agency Type of Authority ( Perm/ Temp) Authorized Activity ( including Incentives) Funding ( Dedicated or Annual Appropriation) Reference May 26, 1998 House Bill 98 1058,

codified in § § 25 6.7

101 to 25 6.7 110 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Sunset on December 31, 2003,

but program continues to be supported by CDPHE. Environmental Leadership Program:

  Establish voluntary program for environmental leaders after consultation with stakeholders.

  Participation is subject to review every 3 years.

  Establish mandatory and alternative elective program elements that include verifiable methods to measure progress.

Incentives:

  Formal recognition   Referred vendor status   Awards & news releases   Potential for fewer inspections   Expedited permitting   Consolidated reporting and monitoring   Extended permit terms   Emission credits in exchange for beyond compliance performance   Priority for funding   Financial credits or rebates based on percentage of permit fees   Eligible for P2 revolving fund annual appropriation ($ 493,980 for first year) http:// www. state. co. us/ gov_ dir/ leg_ dir/

olls? s11998/ sl. 235. htm A complete list of CDPHE incentives may be found at:

http:// www. cdphe. state. co. us/ el/ elp/ inc entivestable. pdf Environmental Management System Permit Program:

  Authorizes CDPHE to implement a voluntary EMS program that allows limited number of participants to be determined by CDPHE.

  EMS Permit will allow participants to use alternative approaches to ensure compliance with existing requirements.

Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment ( CHDPHE) April 19, 2004 Colo. Rev. Stat.

§ 25 6.6 House Bill 04 1147 Incentives:

  Ability to develop alternative compliance approaches.

  Potential for reducing administrative burdens of participants and permitting authorities. Same fee provisions as otherwise applicable. http:// www. cdphe. state. co. us/ el/ EMS/ e mspermit/

Exemplary Environmental Management Systems:

  Establish pilot program to support businesses with EMS that are seeking permit or other approval.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection June 29, 1999 Public Act No. 99 226 Incentives:

  Expedited permitting   Public recognition which may include leadership seal or symbol   Potential for reduced reporting   Facility wide permit   Plant wide emissions limits or emissions caps   Reduced permitting fees.

  Certificate issued by Commissioner. Not addressed in legislation. http:// cga. ct. gov/ ps99/ Act/ pa/ 1999PA

00226 R00HB 06830 PA. htm 11 Table 2: SUMMARY OF STATE STATUTES AUTHORIZING PERFORMANCE BASED ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM State Environmental Agency Type of Authority ( Perm/ Temp) Authorized Activity ( including Incentives) Funding ( Dedicated or Annual Appropriation) Reference Principles for Responsible Industry ( PRIDE)

  Voluntary program for facilities to commit to specific actions to implement Principles for Responsible Industry Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control May 20, 2003 Executive Order 44 Incentives:

  Expedited or flexible permitting   Reduced inspections   Awards Not addressed in Executive Order. http:// www. state. de. us/ governor/ orders / webexecorder44. shtml See program website for members, but no specific information on incentives.

http:// www. state. de. us/ governor/ pride/ i ndex. shtml Alternative Methods of Regulatory Permitting:

  Explore alternatives to traditional methods of regulatory permitting,

provided there is no material increase in pollution emissions or discharges.

  Work with stakeholders to develop specific limited pilot projects to test new compliance measures.

2000 Title XXIX Public Health Chapter 403.0611 Incentives:

  Reduce transaction costs.

  Provide economic incentives for emissions reductions. Not addressed in legislation.

Citrus Juice Processing Facilities:

  Establishes experimental alternative air permitting limits on a sector wide basis in lieu of NSR permitting.

  Requires evaluation of program to determine if overall emissions benefits equal or exceed conventional permitting.

Effective July 1,

2002 F. S. 03.08725 Regulations at F. A. C.

Rule 62 210.340,

December 17, 2002,

amended November 1, 2004 See also 70 FR 5928

5930 ( February 4,

2005) for EPA's conditional approval of SIP revision. Incentives:

  Alternative compliance standards in lieu of obtaining air pollution construction and operation permits. Same fee structure as for title V operating permit program.

Environmental Award Program:

  FDEP authorized to administer an environmental award program to recognize efforts in the protection , conservation, or restoration of air,

water, or other natural resources.

  FDEP authorized to adopt rules to govern administration of program.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( FDEP) 2004 Title XXIX Fla. stat.

§ 403.414 Incentive:

  Environmental award. Not addressed in legislation. 12 Table 2: SUMMARY OF STATE STATUTES AUTHORIZING PERFORMANCE BASED ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM State Environmental Agency Type of Authority ( Perm/ Temp) Authorized Activity ( including Incentives) Funding ( Dedicated or Annual Appropriation) Reference Environmental Management System Agreement:

  Authorizes IEPA to execute Environmental Management System Agreement ( EMSA) with voluntary pilot companies that demonstrate innovative environmental measures.

  Pilot candidate must achieve beyond compliance results or a risk reduction of compliance that is clearly superior to the existing regulatory system.

  Agency authorized to enter into an EMSA with any Performance Track member that meets the program's criteria.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ( IEPA) June 13, 1996, Public Act No. 89 465,

codified in 415 ILCS 5/ 52.3 3; January 1,

2002, Public Act No. 92 397, codified in 415 ILCS 5/ 52.3 1 and 52.3 2; July 10,

2003, Public Act No. 93 171, codified in 5/ 52.3 1, 52.3 2,

and 52.3 4. Regulations for Regulatory Innovation Projects at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 187. Incentives:

  EMSA operates as alternative compliance approach ( or facility wide " permit") in lieu of applicable requirements.

  Authority to give preference and allow greater incentives for pilots that include provisions for operating sustainably through continuous improvements in products and processes. Not addressed in legislation. Illinois state statutes and regulations can be located at: http://

www. ilga. gov.

See also:

http:// www. epa. state. il. us/

newsreleases 2000 2000 106

regulatoryinnovation html.

IEPA issued its first EMSA in March of 2000 to a 3M facility located in Bedford Park. Based on communication with IEPA personnel,

there may have been one or two other EMSAs signed, but the staff person who managed the program retired in 2002 and there has not been much activity. The 3M facility in Bedford Park is closed.

Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection Anticipates rolling out new program in Fall 2005. Unclear if legislation is needed.

Environmental Leadership Program:

  Voluntary environmental leadership program available to eligible participants with EMS, compliance audit program, P2 program, system of verifiable measures to demonstrate compliance.

  Member must also implement and maintain one or more environmental leadership actions specified in the statute.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection ( MDEP) Effective July 1,

2000 38 MRSA c. 32 Unable to locate regulations that were to have been adopted by July 1, 2002. Incentives:

  Dollar rebates or credits applied against permit fees.

  Formal public recognition by Governor and MDEP   Accelerate review and processing of permit applications.

  Increased self monitoring, reporting, certification, or third party certification to demonstrate compliance   Extension of terms of licenses or permits   Issuance of additional credits for emissions reductions beyond minimum requirements under established trading or credit program. Environmental Leadership Revolving Loan Fund http:// www. state. me. us/ dep/ oc/ steup/ st ep up. pdf 13 Table 2: SUMMARY OF STATE STATUTES AUTHORIZING PERFORMANCE BASED ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM State Environmental Agency Type of Authority ( Perm/ Temp) Authorized Activity ( including Incentives) Funding ( Dedicated or Annual Appropriation) Reference Clean Corporate Citizen Program:

  Regulations establish voluntary Clean Corporate Citizen Program ( C3)

under MDEQ's general authorizing legislation.

  Facilities that have demonstrated environmental stewardship and a strong environmental ethic are eligible to be recognized as Clean Corporate Citizens.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ( MDEQ) No authorizing statute. Senate Bill 0354 ( 2005) has been passed by the Senate on May 5, 2005 and was referred to the House Committee.

Bill proposes to provide legislative authorization for the program. Regulations for Clean Corporate Citizen Program at Mich. Admin. Code R324.1501 1511.

Effective March 24,

2000 Incentives:

  Reduced reporting and monitoring   Expedited permits   Public recognition Senate Bill 0354 proposes establishing a one time, first year $ 500 reduction in permit fees for each C3 facility. For the status of the legislation, see http:// www. legislature. mi. gov/ mileg. as p? page= getObject& objName= 2005

SB 0354.

For the regulations, see http:// www. michig an. gov/ deq/ 0,1607,7 135

3307_ 3666_ 4134 9922, 00. html Over 100 facilities have received C3 designation to date.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency March 1996 Environmental Regulatory Innovations Act,

Minn.. Stat. 114C. 01

114C. 28, 1995,

amended 1996, 1999,

and 2000. Act authorizes Minnesota XL Permit Project and the Environmental Improvement Program. Minnesota XL Permit Project:

  Voluntary pilot program authorizing innovative and flexible regulatory approaches that encourage facilities to implement effective P2 strategies while complying with verifiable and enforceable pollution limits.

  Intent to consolidate existing permit requirements into one facility wide permit. Environmental Improvement Program ( also known as Environmental Audit Program):

  Voluntary program to promote compliance by facilities with an EMS.

  Major facilities must prepare an environmental audit program P2 plan that analyzes options for technically and economically reducing pollution.

  This individually issued state permit option allows small and mediumsized air emission facilities that employ a qualifying ( ISO 14001) EMS to operate under emission caps set below federal thresholds ( under 100 tons per year for most pollutants). Not addressed in legislation. http:// www. revisor. leg. state. mn. us/ stat s/ 114C/ 01. html http:// www. pca. state. mn. us/ programs/ p rojectxl/ xl leg. pdf http:// www. pca. state. mn. us/ programs/ p rojectxl/ xl_ rpt98. pdf http:// www. pca. state. mn. us/ programs/ e ms. html 14 Table 2: SUMMARY OF STATE STATUTES AUTHORIZING PERFORMANCE BASED ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM State Environmental Agency Type of Authority ( Perm/ Temp) Authorized Activity ( including Incentives) Funding ( Dedicated or Annual Appropriation) Reference Incentives:

Minnesota XL Permit Project:

  Regulatory flexibility and alternative compliance methods   Less administrative burden for permitting authorities and facilities.

Environmental Improvement Program:

  Green Star recognition   Deferred enforcement of 90 days if facility is meeting performance schedule and is not subject to exceptions ( including criminal activity or causing serious harm, or imminent threat, to human health or the environment.

Flexible EMS Air Permit:

  This individually issued state permit option allows small and mediumsized air emission facilities that employ a qualifying ( ISO 14001) EMS to operate under emission caps set below federal thresholds ( under 100 tons per year for most pollutants).

December 6, 2004.

Flexible EMS Air Permit, State Register Minnesota Rules Chapter 7007. Incentives:

  Relief from minor and moderate permit amendment application requirements   Fewer record keeping and reporting requirements. Not addressed in regulation. http:// www. revisor. leg. state. mn. us/ arul e/ 7007/ 0100. html http:// www. pca. state. mn. us/ publication s/ aq2 30. pdf Enhanced Environmental Performance Agreements ( EEPAs) :

  Voluntary pilot program authorizing innovative, alternative compliance approaches that achieve equal or better environmental results than those required under applicable requirements.

  Approved EEPA operates in lieu of existing permits identified in the agreement.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Effective August 23,

1998 N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 125 C: 6 a This program has not been implemented. Incentives:

  Regulatory flexibility. Not addressed in legislation. http:// www. gencourt. state. nh. us/ rsa/ ht ml/ X/ 125 C/ 125 C 6 a. htm New York Environmental Leaders:

  NYDEC to establish a voluntary program to reward organizations with high performing EMSs and a commitment to superior environmental performance that is sustained and systemic.

  NYDEC to develop and use environmental performance improvement tools in the Department's enforcement program.

New York Department of Environmental Conservation ( NYDEC)

Program under development. April 5, 2004 Commissioner's Policy ( CP 34)

Note: This program is not authorized by a State statute or regulations. Incentives:

  Recognition NA http:// www. dec. state. ny. us/ website/ ppu / ems/ index. html 15 Table 2: SUMMARY OF STATE STATUTES AUTHORIZING PERFORMANCE BASED ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM State Environmental Agency Type of Authority ( Perm/ Temp) Authorized Activity ( including Incentives) Funding ( Dedicated or Annual Appropriation) Reference Green Permits Program:

  Program to achieve significantly better environmental results than required by law through adoption of EMS or use of innovative approaches or strategies.

  Voluntary program with 3 tiers of performance eligibility.

  Program also provides opportunity to obtain a custom waiver permit.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ( ODEQ) 1997 ORS 468.501 to 468.521; and ORS 553.11.

April 23, 2003 House Bill 3175 amends Green Permits legislation to extend sunset of issuance of permits to January 2, 2008.

1999 ODEQ promulgates regulations 340 OAR 14 Incentives:

  Regulatory flexibility in the form of exemptions or waivers to promote innovative environmental approaches. Applicant reimburses ODEQ for the agency's full direct and indirect costs of developing and implementing the permit, not to exceed $ 25,000. http:// www. leg. state. or. us/ ors/ 468. html http:// www. arcweb. sos. state. or. us/ rules / OARs_ 300/ OAR_ 340/ 340_ 014. html Innovation in Environmental Approaches ( Environmental Excellence Program:

  Authorizes SCDHEC to enter into cooperative agreements on a pilot basis with up to 10 eligible participants for up to 5 years with a possible 5 year renewal.

  Eligibility criteria include achieving emissions/ discharge reductions that exceed otherwise applicable requirements, providing for alternative compliance approaches that reduce administrative burden, or achieving natural resource conservation.

  SCDHEC authorized to grant variances from existing requirements if the participant achieves emission reductions which exceed applicable statutory requirements.

South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control ( SCDHEC) May 29, 2002 S. C. Code Ann. § § 48 56 10 to 48 56

160. Review of regulations did not result in any information. Incentives:

  Alternative testing or reporting to reduce the administrative burden while ensuring compliance.

  Deferred enforcement if participant is diligently pursuing compliance and correcting violations discovered in self audit, provided certain exceptions are not triggered. Same fee structure as would otherwise apply to facility. http:// www. scstatehouse. net/ code/ t48c 056. htm 16 Table 2: SUMMARY OF STATE STATUTES AUTHORIZING PERFORMANCE BASED ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM State Environmental Agency Type of Authority ( Perm/ Temp) Authorized Activity ( including Incentives) Funding ( Dedicated or Annual Appropriation) Reference RFO: September 20, 1998 30 Tex. Stat. Ann.

§ § 90.10  90.20 Regulatory Flexibility Order ( RFO):

  Application for RFO must include detailed description and documentation of why the proposed alternative compliance approach is more protective, not inconsistent with federal law, implementation schedule, and any proposed cross pollutant transfers.

  Public notice and participation required. RFO: Application fee of $ 250, unless it is determined to be significant and complex, in which case the applicant must execute a cost recovery agreement with TCEQ.

Act relating to the Texas NRCC ( predecessor of TCEQ): September 1, 2001 77th Reg. Legis. Sess.

HB 2912 EMS: § 5.131 Performance Based Reg. for Health and Safety Code: § § 5.751  5.758 Performance Based Reg. for Water Code:

§ § 18.05  18.07 Environmental Management Systems:

  Adopt comprehensive program that provides incentives to encourage the use of EMSes; and integrates the use of an EMS into TCEQ's regulatory programs, including permitting, compliance assistance, and compliance summaries. Performance Based Regulation:

  Authorized to adopt performance based programs with reference to the SDRS and the RFO. Not directly addressed in legislation. http:// www. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ exec/ sbea/

ems/ index. html Texas EMS:

December 16, 2001 30 Tex. Stat. Ann. § § 90.30  90.44 Texas Environmental Management System Program:

  Provides incentives for regulated entities that adopt and implement a results based EMS. Texas EMS:

Not addressed in legislation.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( TCEQ) SDRS:

August 14, 2003 30 Tex. Stat. Ann.

§ § 90.50  90.72 Strategically Directed Regulatory Structure ( SDRS):

  Authorizes TCEQ to reward environmental performance with regulatory incentives if applicant demonstrates beyond compliance under the Texas Water Code or the Texas Health and Safety Code, is eligible for an RFO,

the Texas EMS Program, the flexible air permit program, a voluntary program administered by the Small Business and Environmental Assistance Division, or programs authorized as innovative by the executive director. Texas SDRS: Not addressed in legislation. 17 Table 2: SUMMARY OF STATE STATUTES AUTHORIZING PERFORMANCE BASED ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM State Environmental Agency Type of Authority ( Perm/ Temp) Authorized Activity ( including Incentives) Funding ( Dedicated or Annual Appropriation) Reference Incentives:

Regulatory Flexibility Order:

  Approved alternative compliance approaches Texas EMS Program and Strategically Directed Regulatory Structure:

  Public recognition   Eligible for regulatory flexibility   On site technical assistance   Accelerated access to program information   Modification of state or federal regulatory requirements that do not change emission or discharge limits   Low priority inspection frequency Strategically Directed Regulatory Structure:

  In addition to those cited above, single point of contact for coordinating innovative programs Virginia Environmental Excellence Program:

  Authority to establish programs to recognize facilities and persons that have demonstrated a commitment to enhanced environmental performance and to encourage innovations in environmental protection.

  Extent of recognition/ incentives depends on whether the facility is ( 1) an environmental enterprise, ( 2) an exemplary enterprise, or ( 3) an extraordinary enterprise.

  A person or facility may participate in the program for up to 3 years and may reapply to the program.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ( VDEQ) March 24, 2005 Code of Virginia,

Chapter 11.1 of Title 10.1, § § 10.1 1187.1  10.1 1187.7 Tiered Incentives ( cumulative):

Environmental Enterprise ( E2):

  Public recognition   Reduced fees   Governor's Environmental Excellence Awards Exemplary Environmental Enterprise ( E3) and Extraordinary Environmental Enterprise ( E4):

  Reduced inspection priority   Single point of contact between facility and VDEQ   Streamlined environmental reporting   Reduced monitoring requirements   Prioritized permit and permit amendment review   Ability to implement alternative compliance measures approved by the appropriate air, waste, or water board. Not addressed in legislation. http:// www. deq. state. va. us/ veep/ pdf/ ve eplaw. pdf 18 Table 2: SUMMARY OF STATE STATUTES AUTHORIZING PERFORMANCE BASED ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM State Environmental Agency Type of Authority ( Perm/ Temp) Authorized Activity ( including Incentives) Funding ( Dedicated or Annual Appropriation) Reference Environmental Excellence Program:

  Authorizes WVDEP to enter into environmental performance agreements with eligible participants that specify applicable requirements and any requirements that are modified, waived, or replaced, as well as the monitoring measures necessary to ensure accountability and compliance.

  Program requires commitment by participants to superior environmental performance.

  The secretary may establish classes, categories or tiers of environmental performance agreements.

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ( WVDEP) Passed March 11,

2004; Effective date 90 days from passage. Sections 22 25 1 to 22 25 13, Code of West Virginia.

Law sunsets on June 30, 2009. P Public comment period closed July 19,

2005 for proposed rules. Incentives:

  The secretary shall propose rules for legislative approval establishing incentives to be granted to any participant that complies with the mandatory and elective program elements. The secretary may establish fees to recover application,

renewal, and administrative costs incurred by WVDEP.

Establishes an Environmental Excellence Program Administrative Fund allowing for gifts and donations. http:// www. wvdep. org/ oi http:// www. epa. gov/ performancetrack/

states/ programs/ wv_ env_ excel_ prog. p df Environmental Results Program:

  Authorizes WDNR to create two tiers of voluntary programs that require having an EMS ( Tier II), or committing to implement an EMS within a year's time ( Tier I).

  Tier I applicants shall describe their plans for activities that enhance the environment; Tier II applicants must demonstrate a record of superior environmental performance and commit to maintaining and improving that performance.

  Encourages the WDNR to make the program compatible with federal performance based programs.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ( WDNR) April 16, 2004 Chapter 299 Wisconsin Statutes § 83 ( 299.83).

2003 Wisconsin Act 276 ( Senate Bill 61)

Program sunsets after July 1, 2009. Tiered Incentives ( cumulative):

Tier I:

  Public recognition through a numbered certificate, inclusion on the WDNR's website, and annually publish notice of recognition in local newspaper.

  Participant eligible to use program logo   Direct point of contact between the WDNR and the facility   Fewer inspections   Deferred civil enforcement if correcting violations identified in selfaudits Tier 2:

  Applicants propose incentives that are proportional to their commitment to maintain and improve their superior environmental performance. If approved, such incentives and commitments are included in a participation contract between the WDNR and the participant. Not addressed in the legislation. http:// www. dnr. state. wi. us/ org/ caer/ cea / environmental/ index. htm http:// www. epa. gov/ performancetrack/

states/ programs/ 03Act276_ Green_ Tier _ 4_ 04. pdf 19 Attachment 2 Lessons Learned from the PTrack Incentives Implementation Process To support the Incentives Workgroup in identifying options for expediting the incentives implementation process, we contacted states to understand the drivers and challenges associated with state adoption of the PTrack regulatory incentives and their implementation.

Of the 13 states identified on our list as having implemented one or both of the PTrack incentives, we conducted interviews with CO, NC, OK, PA, TN, VA, and WA, representing Regions 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10, respectively. Of the four states identified on our list as actively pursuing implementation of PTrack incentives, we conducted an interview with SC in Region 4.2 We initiated contact with the states on August 9, 2005; we completed interviews and follow up communications by August 25, 2005.

We compiled basic information from our interviews into Exhibit 1 below. Although the sample size for our interviews is relatively small, the overlap in responses appears to offer a representative sample of states involved in incentive implementation activities. We also provide a summary of the main points gleaned from the interviews conducted and our recommendations for how EPA can facilitate the implementation of PTrack incentives.

Main Points from Interviews   Adoption of the incentive rule changes does not appear to be an obstacle to implementation. The process for most states is very straightforward, except in the case of CO and TN where attempts were made to broaden the scope of the incentives to cover state leadership program members in addition to PTrack members. Even in these states, the rules were eventually adopted, minus the proposed language changes.

  The state PTrack coordinator or P2 staff usually initiates the regulatory adoption process by contacting the state's media program staff to update them on the incentives. Media program staff receptivity is greater in states where the two programs have a working relationship and strong communication. Media program staff are responsible for bringing the proposed rule changes before the state's regulatory body. Some states report an internal lack of support for PTrack and innovative programs in general among state environmental officials and media program managers, which impedes efforts to promote PTrack and implement incentives at the facility level.

2 We initially contacted nine of the 13 states identified on our list as having implemented the PTrack incentives. Of the nine, we were unable to conduct interviews with two states: GA, FL. FL declined an interview citing limited resources available to prioritize PTrack and too little information to report. We selected another two states from the list, IL and NJ, as replacements but were unable to conduct interviews with them. Among the four states identified as actively implementing PTrack incentives, we contacted but were unable to schedule interviews with AL, the District of Columbia, and DE. AL declined an interview because, according to our contact, it has not yet begun the implementation process and had nothing to report. 20   More significant to the incentive implementation process is the limited number of PTrack members who are eligible for the incentives and interested in them. Exhibit 1 shows that, particularly among states that have their own leadership programs in addition to PTrack, few, if any facilities are eligible or interested in pursuing these incentives. 3 Although eligibility numbers are higher in the two states without leadership programs, respondents are not optimistic about participation. For example, WA indicated that most of the larger facilities, which could ultimately benefit from the incentives, are not eligible for them because of ongoing compliance problems preventing them from joining PTrack. And smaller facilities that are eligible for PTrack membership would not qualify for the incentives because of the size of their waste streams. SC, a state not authorized to offer incentives through its own leadership program, also identified constraints on facility eligibility and implementation of PTrack incentives. One of its eligible PTrack members will not pursue the RCRA incentive because the costs associated with changing the company's corporate policy to allow implementation in the one facility participating in PTrack are prohibitive.

  A number of states, including CO and NC, want to provide incentives and greater regulatory flexibility to their leadership program members who are not PTrack members. They suggested that EPA regional media and compliance program staff do not feel authorized to expand eligibility for these incentives without formal guidance.

  The role of EPA in PTrack incentive implementation varies considerably by region. The level of support for and promotion of PTrack by EPA regional staff to states and PTrack facilities appears to depend on:

1) the PTrack staff presence at the region ( e. g., NC reported that Region 4 has experienced significant turnover among P2 and PTrack staff); 2) the familiarity of regional staff ( particularly the media and compliance programs) with PTrack; 3) the kind of working relationship that exists between the region and the state; and 4) the level of routine contact between the regional staff ( particularly the media and compliance programs) and state facilities.

For example, states with leadership programs reported that PTrack was less appealing to their facilities because they do not have the same level of familiarity or contact with EPA regional staff as they do with state media program staff.

  States suggested a few ways for EPA to facilitate PTrack incentives implementation at the state level:

1) develop incentives that would be of greater interest to facilities and apply to specific industrial sectors ( e. g., WA reported that it is trying to develop MOAs with trade associations to achieve compliance through P2;);

3 It is difficult to know for certain how many PTrack member facilities are eligible for incentives based on state interviews alone. When asked about eligibility, few respondents had information on exactly how many of their PTrack members are eligible for or have sought to implement the incentives. In an attempt to verify numbers provided by respondents, we reviewed our PTrack member database to determine the number of facilities in each state potentially eligible for the RCRA and/ or MACT incentives. 21 2) grant equivalency status to state leadership programs that meet PTrack criteria; 3) support the development of state incentives that are more responsive to local facilities' concerns ( e. g., SC has initiated pilot projects that allow participating facilities to propose their own approaches to regulatory flexibility); and 4) engender greater awareness of PTrack and incentives among regional staff, state environmental officials, state media program staff, industrial sectors, and PTrack members themselves.

The need for direct communication about PTrack incentives among EPA Regions, state media program staff, and eligible facilities was noted more frequently by states that experience a lack of internal agency support for PTrack, including OK and TN.

Recommendations Drawing from the insights and experiences offered by the states, we propose the following recommendations to EPA for improving its facilitation of incentives implementation under PTrack:

I. Collaborate with states and specific industry sectors to identify innovative incentives that have broader applicability and are attractive to more facilities. Consider ways to either grant states authority to extend PTrack incentives to state leadership program members or create parity between PTrack and state leadership programs to make it easier for facilities to obtain dual membership. For example, EPA and states may wish to consider drafting federal regulatory language to authorize eligibility to any state performance based program that meets the approval of EPA. This would require EPA to review state performance based programs to determine whether a program is equivalent to the acceptance and retention standards of the PTrack program.

II. Collaborate with states to work through the practical issues related to implementation " in the field." In particular, state inspectors/ permitters and EPA regulatory staff may be concerned about how compliance determinations are affected by certain incentives.

III. Work to develop consistent approaches to building awareness of PTrack in Regions, including orientation of regional staff, outreach to state PTrack coordinators and media program staff, and coordination of outreach to existing and potential PTrack facilities to promote new and existing incentives. A standard communications package should be prepared in connection with the launch of new incentives that includes an EPA point of contact, a list of eligible PTrack members in each state, and a fact sheet describing the incentive. 22 Exhibit 1. Ptrack Incentives Implementation Summary Ptrack Facilities EPA Regional Program Support Needed( f)

States Interviewed( a) RCRA Adopted( b) MACT Adopted Easy Implementation of Regulatory Change( c ) State Leadership Program Potentially Eligible for RCRA Incentive ( d) Implemented RCRA Incentive Potentially Eligible for MACT Incentive ( d) Greater Knowledge &

Support of Ptrack Greater Outreach to States Greater Outreach to Facilities Implemented Incentives CO Yes ( E) Yes No Yes 2 ( 2) ? 0 ( 3) Yes Yes Yes NC Yes ( IBR) Yes Yes Yes 1 ( 1) 0 0 ( 3) Yes Yes Yes OK Yes ( IBR) No Yes Yes ? ( 1) ? ? ( 2) No Yes Yes PA Yes ( IBR) Yes Yes No ? ( 11) ? ? ( 5) No No No TN Yes ( V) No No Yes 3 ( 4) ? 0 ( 0) Yes Yes Yes VA Yes ( V) No Yes Yes ? ( 5) 1 1 ( 3) No No No WA Yes ( E) In process Yes No 5 ( 4) 5 ? ( 2) No No No Actively Implementing Incentives SC In process ( V) No Yes Yes( e) 2 ( 2) ? ? ( 1) Yes Yes Yes Notes: A "?" means that the state did not provide the information ( or the information provided was not clear). We attempted to independently verify this information in cases where we could not obtain clarification from the interview respondents.

( a) We were unable to conduct interviews with five states from the initial list ( GA, FL, AL, DC, and DE) and two states selected as replacements ( IL and NJ) .

( b) For RCRA Delegation: IBR = Incorporation by Reference; V = Verbatim Adoption of Federal RCRA Regulations; E = Adoption of Equivalent and No Less Stringent State Rule.

( c) States that did not experience easy implementation had proposed contentious language modifications to the rule changes that delayed their adoption.

( d) Numbers on the left were supplied by interview respondents. Numbers in parenthesis on the right were obtained through independent review of our Ptrack member database ( updated 8/ 2005). In the case of RCRA, we counted as potentially eligible all members with RCRA LQG permits; in the case of MACT, we counted as potentially eligible all members with only CAA minor permits. Since the data do not identify whether CAA permits cover hazardous air pollutants, it is not possible to discern which facilities are subject to MACT requirements. Additional follow up with states coupled with review of PTrack members' application materials may provide the level of detail required to reconcile the two sets of numbers.

( e) SC indicated that its leadership program is not legally authorized by the state legislature to offer incentives to member facilities; presently SC can only offer incentives through PTrack.

( f) The responses by states reflect the variation in EPA support of PTrack across regions and among programs within regions.


[Federal Register: November 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 69149]
[DOCID:fr29no06-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: [71 FR 68645,
November 27, 2006].

STATUS: Closed meeting.

PLACE: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MEETING: Additional meeting (Week of
November 27, 2006).
    A closed meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, November 30, 2006
at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners and certain staff members who have an interest in the
matter will attend the closed meeting.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), (9)(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5),
(7), (9)(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matter at
the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Campos as duty officer, voted to consider the item
listed for the closed meeting in closed session, and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday,
November 30, 2006 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and
Institution of an administrative proceeding.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 27, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-9473 Filed 11-27-06; 3:54 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          SECTOR POLICIES AND PROGRAMS DIVISION
                       OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
                               OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

DATE:		March 27, 2023

SUBJECT:	Stakeholder Meetings on Emergency Engine 50-Hour Provisions

FROM:	Christopher Werner (EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/ESG)

TO:		Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0879

The purpose of this memorandum is to present a summary of several information-gathering meetings that took place between members of various stakeholder groups and the EPA since the Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's request for voluntary remand of provisions appearing in the NESHAP and NSPS specifying that emergency engines can operate for up to 50 hours per year to mitigate local transmission and/or distribution limitations so as to avert potential voltage collapse or line overloads that could lead to the interruption of power supply in a local area or region. These meetings took place to attempt to gather information from stakeholders regarding the use of these provisions, which are often referred to as the "50-hour provisions."

Meeting Dates: September 8, October 7, November 10, and December 14, 2021
Stakeholder Groups: American Public Power Association (APPA), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)

Meeting Dates: November 14, 2022
Stakeholder Groups: APPA, NRECA, Blue Sky Environmental LLC, Enel X North America, Consumers Power

In the meetings, EPA noted that a review of the information reported electronically to EPA on usage of engines for the 50-hour provision indicated that there appeared to be very little usage for the purpose of mitigating local transmission and/or distribution limitations so as to avert potential voltage collapse or line overloads that could lead to the interruption of power supply in a local area or region. Stakeholders did not provide specific additional information to the EPA on prior, current or anticipated future use of provision beyond some characterization of late reporting (i.e., that one entity has been using the provision, but did not submit reporting of this use until recently).

We are providing in the docket files containing all data electronically reported to EPA on use of the 50-hour provision over the last few years. We note that some entities appear to report use of the 50-hour provision in circumstances when other regulatory provisions allowing operation of the engines (such as readiness testing pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6640(f)(2)(i)) would appear to be more appropriate. The data is contained in three separate Excel files, each corresponding to the appropriate rule - NSPS (IIII), NSPS (JJJJ), and NESHAP (ZZZZ).