[Federal Register: May 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28454-28459]
[DOCID:fr16my08-66]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8567-1, EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0238]

Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges From Construction Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed permit issuance.

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

SUMMARY: EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 today are proposing
for public comment the issuance of their 2008 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System general permits for stormwater discharges
from new dischargers engaged in large and small construction
activities. Hereinafter, these NPDES general permits will be referred
to as ``permit'' or ``2008 construction general permit'' or ``2008
CGP.'' ``New dischargers'' are those who did not file a notice of
intent (``NOI'') to be covered under the 2003 construction general
permit (``2003 CGP'') before it expired. Existing dischargers who
properly filed an NOI to be covered under the 2003 CGP continue to be
authorized to discharge under that permit according to its terms. This
draft 2008 CGP contains the same limits and conditions as the Agency's
2003 CGP with the exception of a few minor modifications which are
detailed below. As proposed, EPA is issuing this CGP for a period not
to exceed two (2) years and will make the permit available to new
construction activities and unpermitted ongoing activities only.
    In addition to proposing this draft CGP, EPA is also requesting
comments on the criteria to be used by the Agency to incorporate, by
reference, ``qualifying local program requirements'' for erosion and
sediment control as provided for in EPA's regulations. Approved
qualifying local program requirements can then be incorporated by
reference into the Agency's construction general permit. A construction
site operator with construction activities within the jurisdiction of
the qualifying local program can follow local erosion and sediment
control requirements in lieu of complying with comparable erosion and
sediment control requirements in EPA's CGP.

DATES: Comments on EPA's proposal, including the draft permit, must be
postmarked by June 16, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2008-0238, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
Headquarters West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: A copy of the draft 2008 CGP and its accompanying
fact sheet is available at www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp. Direct
your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0238. EPA's policy is
that all comments received will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Schaner, Water Permits Division,
Office of Wastewater Management (Mail Code: 4203M), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., EPA East, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The 2008 construction general permit (``2008 CGP'') would
potentially apply to the following construction activities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         North American
                                                            industry
           Category              Examples of affected    classification
                                       entities          system (NAICS)
                                                              code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  Construction site operators disturbing 1
                                  or more acres of land, or less than 1
                                  acre but part of a larger common plan
                                   of development or sale if the larger
                                  common plan will ultimately disturb 1
                                     acre or more, and performing the
                                          following activities:
                                   Building,                         233
                                    Developing and
                                    General
                                    Contracting.
                                   Heavy Construction                234
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but
provides it as a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists the types of activities that
EPA is now aware of that could potentially be affected by this action.
Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected.
To determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you
should carefully examine the definition of ``construction activity''
and ``small construction activity'' in existing EPA regulations at 40
CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) and 122.26(b)(15), respectively. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed for technical information in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Eligibility for coverage under the 2008 CGP would be limited to
operators of ``new projects'' or ``unpermitted ongoing projects.'' A
``new project'' is one that commences after the effective date of the
2008 CGP. An ``unpermitted ongoing project'' is one that commenced
prior to the effective date of the 2008 CGP, yet never received
authorization to discharge under the 2003 CGP or any other NPDES permit
covering its construction-related stormwater discharges. This proposal
is limited to those areas where EPA is the permitting authority. A list
of eligible areas is included in Appendix B of the draft 2008 CGP.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency 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.
     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, 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.

C. Public Hearings

    EPA has not scheduled any public hearings to receive public comment
concerning the proposed permit. All persons will continue to have the
right to provide written comments during the public comment period.
However, interested persons may request a public hearing pursuant to 40
CFR 124.12 concerning the proposed permit. Requests for a public
hearing must be sent or delivered in writing to the same address as
provided above for public comments prior to the close of the comment
period. Requests for a public hearing must state the nature of the
issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12,
EPA shall hold a public hearing if it finds, on the basis of requests,
a significant degree of public interest in a public hearing on the
proposed permit. If EPA decides to hold a public hearing, a public
notice of the date, time and place of the hearing will be made at least
30 days prior to the hearing. Any person may provide written or oral
statements and data pertaining to the proposed permit at the public
hearing.

D. Finalizing the Permit

    After the close of the public comment period, EPA will issue a
final permit. This permit will not be issued until after all public
comments have been considered and appropriate changes made to the
permit. EPA's response to public comments received will be included in
the docket as part of the final permit decisions. Once the final permit
becomes effective, operators of new and unpermitted ongoing
construction projects may seek authorization to discharge by filing a
NOI to be covered under the new 2008 CGP. Under EPA's regulations at 40
CFR 122.6, any construction site operator obtaining permit coverage
prior to the July 1, 2008 expiration date of the 2003 CGP,
automatically remains covered under that permit until the earliest of:
     The operator submits a Notice of Termination, or;
     EPA issues an individual permit or denies coverage under
an individual permit for the site's stormwater discharges, or;
     EPA issues a new general permit that establishes
procedures for covering

these existing dischargers to obtain coverage under the new general
permit and the operator obtains coverage consistent with the procedures
detailed in that new general permit.

E. Who Are the EPA Regional Contacts for This Proposed Permit?

    For EPA Region 1, contact Thelma Murphy at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 2, contact Stephen Venezia at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or for Puerto Rico, contact
Sergio Bosques at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 3, contact Garrison Miller at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 5, contact Brian Bell at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 6, contact Brent Larsen at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 7, contact Mark Matthews at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 8, contact Greg Davis at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 10, contact Misha Vakoc at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Background of Permit Proposal

A. Statutory and Regulatory History

    The Clean Water Act (``CWA'') establishes a comprehensive program
``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters.'' 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The CWA also
includes the objective of attaining ``water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife.'' 33
U.S.C. 1251(a)(2). To achieve these goals, the CWA requires EPA to
control the discharges through the issuance of National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits.
    Section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) added section
402(p) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which directed EPA to develop a
phased approach to regulate stormwater discharges under the NPDES
program. EPA published a final regulation in the Federal Register on
the first phase of this program on November 16, 1990, establishing
permit application requirements for ``storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity.'' See 55 FR 47990. EPA defined the term
``storm water discharge associated with industrial activity'' in a
comprehensive manner to cover a wide variety of facilities.
Construction activities, including activities that are part of a larger
common plan of development or sale, that ultimately disturb at least
five acres of land and have point source discharges to waters of the
U.S. were included in the definition of ``industrial activity''
pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x). Phase II of the stormwater program
was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999, and required
NPDES permits for discharges from construction sites disturbing at
least one acre, but less than five acres, including sites that are part
of a larger common plan of development or sale that will ultimately
disturb at least one acre but less than five acres, pursuant to 40 CFR
122.26(b)(15)(i). See 64 FR 68722.
    NPDES permits issued for construction stormwater discharges are
required under Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA to include conditions for
meeting technology-based effluent limits established under Section 301
and, where applicable, Section 306. Once an effluent limitations
guideline or new source performance standard is promulgated in
accordance with these sections, NPDES permits are required to
incorporate limits based on such limitations and standards. See 40 CFR
122.44(a)(1). Prior to the promulgation of national effluent
limitations and standards, permitting authorities incorporate
technology-based effluent limitations on a best professional judgment
basis. CWA section 402(a)(1)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(a)(2)(ii)(B).
    The NPDES regulations, at 40 CFR 122.44(s), authorize EPA to
recognize local erosion and sediment control requirements that meet or
exceed the requirements in that section as a ``qualifying local
program'' (``QLP''). EPA can incorporate any such QLP requirements
meeting or exceeding regulatory criteria into the CGP consistent with
procedures for permit modifications established at 40 CFR 124.5.
Following final incorporation of any QLP into the CGP, construction
site operators that are subject to the requirements of the CGP and who
are operating within the jurisdiction of a QLP, would then be directed
(in the CGP) to follow those qualified local erosion and sediment
control requirements in lieu of otherwise applicable erosion and
sediment control requirements detailed in the CGP. Other CGP
requirements, such as meeting eligibility criteria and standard NPDES
permit conditions would still apply to that construction site operator.
EPA has not incorporated QLPs into any of its previously issued
construction general permits. However, in the interest of implementing
this regulation, consistent with the Office of Water's May 8, 2006
memorandum entitled ``Qualifying Local Programs for Construction Site
Stormwater Runoff'' (available at www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater), EPA is
today proposing draft criteria for incorporating QLPs into this or any
future CGPs.

B. Summary of Permit Proposal

    EPA proposes to issue the 2008 CGP for a period of not to exceed
two years. As proposed, the 2008 CGP will include conditions and limits
that would be identical to the 2003 CGP, with the exception that the
2008 CGP only applies to new and unpermitted ongoing construction
projects. Discharges from ongoing projects (or ``existing
dischargers'') would continue to be covered under the existing 2003
CGP. (However, EPA clarifies that if an operator of a permitted ongoing
project transfers ownership of the project, or a portion thereof, to a
different operator, that subsequent operator will be required to submit
a complete and accurate NOI for a new project under the 2008 CGP.)
Although the existing permit expires on July 1, 2008, dischargers who
filed notices of intent (NOIs) to be authorized under that permit prior
to the expiration date will continue to be authorized to discharge in
accordance with EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.6. The draft permit
proposed here will only apply to dischargers who were not authorized
under the 2003 CGP, which includes both ``new projects'' and
``unpermitted ongoing projects.'' Operators of new projects or
unpermitted ongoing projects seeking coverage under the 2008 CGP would
be expected to use the same electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) system
that is currently in place for the 2003 CGP.
    As stated, EPA proposes to issue the 2008 CGP for a period not to
exceed two years. As a result of recent litigation brought against EPA
concerning the promulgation of effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the construction and development (``C&D'') industry, EPA
is required by court order to propose effluent limitations guidelines
and new source performance standards (hereinafter, ``effluent
guidelines'') for the C&D industry by December 2008, and promulgate
those effluent guidelines by December 2009. See Natural Resources
Defense Council, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No
CV--0408307-GH (C.D. Cal.)(Permanent Injunction and

Judgment, December 5, 2006). EPA projects that the Agency may publish a
proposed rule ahead of the court-ordered deadlines. If EPA publishes
the proposed rule ahead of schedule, this may allow the Agency to
promulgate a final rule ahead of schedule as well. The Agency currently
hopes to promulgate a final rule as early as the end of this calendar
year. However, completion of the tasks necessary to do so is dependent
on the timing of numerous future activities and factors associated with
the effluent guidelines rulemaking process.
    EPA believes it is appropriate to propose a revised CGP once EPA
has issued C&D effluent guidelines, and therefore proposes a maximum
two-year duration for this permit to coincide with the court-ordered
deadlines for the C&D rule. EPA intends to propose and finalize a new,
revised CGP sooner, if the C&D rule is promulgated earlier than the
date directed by the court. EPA solicits comments on the proposed 2-
year duration of this permit.

C. What Is EPA's Rationale for This Permit Proposal?

    Since the 2003 CGP expires on July 1, 2008, it is incumbent upon
EPA to make available a similar general permit that provides coverage
for the estimated 4,000 new dischargers per year commencing
construction in the areas where EPA is the permitting authority.
Without such a permit vehicle, the only other available option for
construction site operators is to obtain coverage under an individual
permit. As has been described in the past, issuance of individual
permits for every construction activity disturbing one acre or more is
infeasible given the resources required for the Agency to issue
individual permits. EPA is proposing to issue a CGP that adopts the
same limits and conditions of the previous permit (the 2003 CGP) for a
limited period of time. This action is appropriate for several reasons.
First, as discussed above, EPA is working on the development of a new
effluent guideline that will address stormwater discharges from the
same industrial activities (i.e., construction activities disturbing
one or more acres) as the CGP. Because the development of the C&D rule
and the issuance of the CGP are on relatively similar schedules, and
the C&D rule will establish national technology-based effluent
limitations and standards for construction activities, EPA believes
that it is more appropriate to proceed along two tracks to permit
construction discharges. The first track entails issuing a CGP for a
limited period of time, not to exceed 2 years, that contains the 2003
CGP limits and conditions, but for only operators of new and
unpermitted ongoing projects, so that such entities can obtain valid
permit coverage for their discharges. The second track involves
proposing and issuing a revised 5-year CGP that incorporates the
requirements of the new C&D rule shortly after the rule is promulgated.
    Second, EPA believes that issuing a substantially revised CGP by
July 1, 2008, would be impracticable given the number of unknowns
concerning the outcome of the C&D rule. EPA does not believe that it
would be appropriate to issue a permit containing technology-based
limitations that would be outdated so quickly, given the fact that the
C&D rule may be promulgated only a few months after permit issuance.
For similar reasons, if EPA had attempted to approximate the
requirements of the new C&D rule and incorporate such limits into a new
CGP, such a permit would presuppose the outcome of the C&D rule and
potentially conflict with the scope and content of the effluent
limitation guideline prior to full consideration of public comments.
Instead, the Agency believes it is a much better use of Agency
resources to wait the short time until after the C&D rule promulgation
to issue a revised CGP that is fully reflective of the new effluent
limitation guideline. In the meantime, during this relatively short
period of time prior to the C&D rule's promulgation and prior to the
issuance of the revised CGP that incorporates those standards, EPA is
proposing to use the permit limits and conditions in the 2003 CGP as an
effective vehicle to control new discharges. EPA notes that it has
minimized the amount of time during which the 2008 CGP will remain
effective in order to underscore the Agency's intention to issue a
revised CGP once the C&D rule is finalized.
    Third, EPA found the alternative of allowing the 2003 CGP to expire
without a replacement, relying instead on an enforcement discretion
approach prior to the issuance of the next permit (similar to the
practice used for the NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for
stormwater discharges from industrial activities), to be an
unacceptable option for stormwater discharges from construction
activities. The CGP potentially has an estimated 4,000 new dischargers
per year that seek coverage. EPA has made progress with the regulated
community in terms of compliance assistance that would be compromised
if a permit is not in place during the interim period prior to the
promulgation of the C&D rule. For instance, EPA Regional offices have
led substantial efforts to boost compliance with the CGP, resulting in
an increased rate of compliance among construction operators. If no
permit is made available by July 1, 2008, EPA anticipates that such
efforts will be undermined, and the compliance rate may decline.
Additionally, the enforcement discretion approach would leave
construction operators without a reasonable way to obtain authorization
to discharge and would expose them to liability from third party
lawsuits for violating the Clean Water Act for unpermitted discharges.
A short-term permit that mirrors the existing 2003 CGP addresses these
concerns by providing a Federal permit with provisions that have
already been reviewed in the previous permit issuance process, and by
avoiding any period of time during which dischargers are not able to
obtain permit coverage.

D. Significant Changes From 2003 CGP

    As discussed above, EPA is proposing to issue the 2008 CGP for a
period not to exceed two years. This permit would include the same
limits and conditions as the 2003 CGP with the following noteworthy
differences:
    1. Clarification that eligibility for coverage under the 2008 CGP
is limited to operators of new and unpermitted ongoing construction
projects.
    2. Clarification that operators of ongoing permitted construction
projects are not eligible for coverage under the 2008 CGP.
    3. Removal of eligibility for operators in Tribal Lands in Maine
from the list of areas in Appendix B where this permit is effective.

E. Geographic Coverage

    EPA is only authorized to provide permit coverage for classes of
discharges that are outside the scope of a State's NPDES program
authorization. EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are proposing
to issue the 2008 CGP to replace the expiring 2003 CGP for operators of
new and unpermitted ongoing construction projects. The geographic
coverage and scope of the 2008 CGP are listed in Appendix B of the
draft permit. The only change from the scope of coverage in the 2003
CGP is that the State of Maine is now the permitting authority for all
discharges in the State, including operators in Tribal Lands, and as
such, discharges in the State of Maine are no longer eligible for
coverage under EPA's CGP.

III. Proposed QLP Approval Criteria

    EPA is requesting public comment on a set of criteria for use in
approving QLPs. EPA developed the criteria based

on the QLP regulatory elements identified in 40 CFR 122.44(s). These
regulatory elements include the following:
    (i) Requirements for construction site operators to implement
appropriate erosion and sediment control best management practices;
    (ii) Requirements for construction site operators to control waste
such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout,
chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may
cause adverse impacts to water quality;
    (iii) Requirements for construction site operators to develop and
implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan. (A stormwater
pollution prevention plan includes site descriptions, descriptions of
appropriate control measures, copies of approved State, Tribal or local
requirements, maintenance procedures, inspection procedures, and
identification of non-stormwater discharges);
    (iv) Requirements to submit a site plan for review that
incorporates consideration of potential water quality impacts; and
    (v) For large construction activities only, any additional
requirements necessary to achieve the applicable technology-based
standards of ``best available technology'' and ``best conventional
technology'' based on the best professional judgment of the permit
writer.
    Using these regulatory elements, EPA has developed a draft set of
criteria to review local erosion and sediment control requirements in
an objective and systematic manner. EPA is proposing to use the
following list of criteria to determine whether local programs meet the
basic elements in 122.44(s). EPA notes that these criteria are
presented in a summary format. During the actual evaluation of
candidate local programs, EPA will need to assess in greater detail
whether the local requirements meet or exceed the requirements in the
applicable section of the CGP that is in effect at the time of the
evaluation.
    I. Erosion and Sediment Control
    a. Sediment controls (e.g., perimeter controls, protection of storm
drain inlets, location of stockpiles away from storm drainage
conveyance), collection of sediment on paved areas to prevent it from
entering storm drains.
    b. Off-site, vehicle tracking of sediments (e.g., establish site
entrances and exits).
    c. Sediment pond, or similar level of control, for sites greater
than 10 acres.
    d. Erosion controls (e.g., minimize disturbed areas, phase
construction activity, blankets, mulches, divert stormwater flowing
onto and through property away from disturbed areas).
    e. Temporary stabilization (e.g., stabilize areas of exposed soil
where construction activity has temporarily ceased).
    f. Final stabilization.
    II. Control of Other Wastes--To prevent contamination of
construction stormwater, the following wastes must be controlled:
    g. Solid waste management (e.g., trash cans, dumpsters, material
handling. and storage areas).
    h. Concrete truck washout (e.g., designate concrete controlled
washout areas).
    i. Sanitary waste (e.g., portable toilets).
    j. Spill prevention and response procedures (e.g., for petroleum
products, chemicals, etc.).
    III. Develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
    k. Project description (e.g., nature of construction, dates and
sequence of construction, site operator information, identification of
potential pollutant sources).
    l. Site map(s).
    m. Description of all erosion, sediment, other waste controls.
    n. Operation and maintenance procedures for erosion and sediment
controls.
    o. Routine self-inspections.
    p. Train employees and subcontractors on the implementation of
controls.
    IV. Submit Site Plan for Review
    q. Submit site plan or entire SWPPP to the qualified local program
for review.
    EPA anticipates that although a program may not meet all of the
criteria listed above, it still may be approved as a QLP for those
parts of the program that do meet the criteria. In such a situation,
the CGP would specify which requirements would be included in the QLP
requirements and which ones would be subject to the CGP requirements.
    EPA invites comments on the draft criteria for approving QLPs. EPA
specifically encourages commenters to suggest modifications to the
wording of the criteria, where necessary, and/or to recommend other
criteria that EPA should use. In addition, EPA invites the public to
suggest candidate local programs that could be considered as a QLP. EPA
also asks for recommendations on how the process for identifying,
approving, and implementing QLPs can work effectively.

IV. Compliance With the Regulatory Flexibility Act

A. EPA's Approach to Compliance With the Regulatory Flexibility Act for
General Permits

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    The legal question of whether a general permit (as opposed to an
individual permit) qualifies as a ``rule'' or as an ``adjudication''
under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) has been the subject of
periodic litigation. In a recent case, the court held that the CWA
Section 404 Nationwide general permit before the court did qualify as a
``rule'' and therefore that the issuance of that general permit needed
to comply with the applicable legal requirements for the issuance of a
``rule.'' National Ass'n of Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 417 F.3d 1272, 1284-85 (DC Cir. 2005) (Army Corps general
permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are rules under the
APA and the Regulatory Flexibility Act; ``Each NWP [nationwide permit]
easily fits within the APA's definition ``rule.* * * As such, each NWP
constitutes a rule * * *'').
    As EPA stated in 1998, ``the Agency recognizes that the question of
the applicability of the APA, and thus the RFA, to the issuance of a
general permit is a difficult one, given the fact that a large number
of dischargers may choose to use the general permit.'' 63 FR 36489,
36497 (July 6, 1998). At that time, EPA ``reviewed its previous NPDES
general permitting actions and related statements in the Federal
Register or elsewhere,'' and stated that ``[t]his review suggests that
the Agency has generally treated NPDES general permits effectively as
rules, though at times it has given contrary indications as to whether
these actions are rules or permits.'' Id. at 36496. Based on EPA's
further legal analysis of the issue, the Agency ``concluded, as set
forth in the proposal, that NPDES general permits are permits [i.e.,
adjudications] under the APA and thus not subject to APA rulemaking
requirements or the RFA.'' Id. Accordingly, the Agency stated that
``the APA's rulemaking requirements are

inapplicable to issuance of such permits,'' and thus ``NPDES permitting
is not subject to the requirement to publish a general notice of
proposed rulemaking under the APA or any other law * * * [and] it is
not subject to the RFA.'' Id. at 36497.
    However, the Agency went on to explain that, even though EPA had
concluded that it was not legally required to do so, the Agency would
voluntarily perform the RFA's small-entity impact analysis. Id. EPA
explained the strong public interest in the Agency following the RFA's
requirements on a voluntary basis: ``[The notice and comment] process
also provides an opportunity for EPA to consider the potential impact
of general permit terms on small entities and how to craft the permit
to avoid any undue burden on small entities.'' Id. Accordingly, with
respect to the NPDES permit that EPA was addressing in that Federal
Register notice, EPA stated that ``the Agency has considered and
addressed the potential impact of the general permit on small entities
in a manner that would meet the requirements of the RFA if it
applied.'' Id.
    Subsequent to EPA's conclusion in 1998 that general permits are
adjudications rather than rules, as noted above, the DC Circuit
recently held that Nationwide general permits under section 404 are
``rules'' rather than ``adjudications.'' Thus, this legal question
remains ``a difficult one'' (supra). However, EPA continues to believe
that there is a strong public policy interest in EPA applying the RFA's
framework and requirements to the Agency's evaluation and consideration
of the nature and extent of any economic impacts that a CWA general
permit could have on small entities (e.g., small businesses). In this
regard, EPA believes that the Agency's evaluation of the potential
economic impact that a general permit would have on small entities,
consistent with the RFA framework discussed below, is relevant to, and
an essential component of, the Agency's assessment of whether a CWA
general permit would place requirements on dischargers that are
appropriate and reasonable. Furthermore, EPA believes that the RFA's
framework and requirements provide the Agency with the best approach
for the Agency's evaluation of the economic impact of general permits
on small entities. While using the RFA framework to inform its
assessment of whether permit requirements are appropriate and
reasonable, EPA will also continue to ensure that all permits satisfy
the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Accordingly, EPA has committed
to operating in accordance with the RFA's framework and requirements
during the Agency's issuance of CWA general permits (in other words,
the Agency has committed that it will apply the RFA in its issuance of
general permits as if those permits do qualify as ``rules'' that are
subject to the RFA).

B. Application of RFA Framework to Proposed Issuance of CGP

    EPA has concluded, consistent with the discussion in Section IV.A
above, that the proposed issuance of the 2008 CGP could affect a
substantial number of small entities. In the areas where the CGP is
effective (see Section II.E), (those areas where EPA is the permit
authority), an estimated 4,000 construction projects per year were
authorized under the 2003 CGP, a substantial number of which could be
operated by small entities. However, EPA has concluded that the
proposed issuance of the 2008 CGP is unlikely to have an adverse
economic impact on small entities. The draft 2008 CGP includes the same
requirements as those of the 2003 CGP. Additionally, an operator's use
of the CGP is volitional (i.e., a discharger could apply for an
individual permit rather than for coverage under this general permit)
and is less burdensome than an individual NPDES permit. EPA intends to
include an updated economic screening analysis with the issuance of the
next CGP.

    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: May 7, 2008.
Ira Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Dated: May 8, 2008.
Walter Mugden,
Director, Division of Environmental Planning & Protection, EPA Region
2.

    Dated: May 6, 2008.
Carl-Axel P. Soderberg,
Division Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA
Region 2.

    Dated: May 7, 2008.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3.

    Dated: May 7, 2008.
Tinka Hyde,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.

    Dated: May 8, 2008.
William H. Honker,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.

    Dated: May 8, 2008.
William A. Spratlin,
Director, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, EPA Region 7.

    Dated: May 8, 2008.
Debra H. Thomas,
Deputy Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships &
Regulatory Assistance, EPA Region 8.

    Dated: May 6, 2008.
Alexis Strauss,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.

    Dated: May 7, 2008.
Michael Gearheard,
 Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10.
 [FR Doc. E8-10997 Filed 5-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 129 (Friday, July 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36210-36212]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0207; Airspace Docket No. 21-ANM-6]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Missoula, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E domestic en route airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Missoula, MT.
This airspace facilitates vectoring of instrument flight rules (IFR)
aircraft and properly contains IFR aircraft operating on direct routes
under the control of Salt Lake City Air Route Traffic Control Center
(ARTCC) and Seattle ARTCC.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 7, 2021. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov//air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you
can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace at Missoula, MT, to ensure the
safety and management of IFR operations in the National Airspace
System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register (86 FR 20468; April 20, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-
0207 to establish Class E airspace at Missoula, MT. Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment, in favor of
the proposed action, was received.
    Subsequent to the publication of the NPRM, the FAA determined that
the proposed Class E6 airspace for Missoula, MT included a minor
overlap into the proposed Class E6 airspace for Great Falls, MT (86 FR
18485; April 9, 2021). To remove the overlapping airspace, an
additional geographic point has been added to the Missoula, MT Class E6
airspace legal description. This change does not have a significant
impact on the proposed airspace boundaries in the NPRM. The geographic
point that has been added to the Final Rule's legal description is
``lat 47[deg]41'18'' N, long 112[deg]36'32'' W.''
    Class E6 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E en route
domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at
Missoula, MT. This action provides controlled airspace to facilitate
vectoring of IFR aircraft under the control of Salt Lake City and
Seattle ARTCCs. The airspace also ensures proper containment of IFR
aircraft operating on direct routes where the current en route
structure is insufficient.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

ANM MT E6 Missoula, MT [New]

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within an area beginning at lat 48[deg]24'0.0'' N, long
115[deg]44'57'' W, to lat 48[deg]25'0.0'' N, long 113[deg]35'21'' W,
to lat 47[deg]53'10'' N, long 113[deg]35'0.0'' W, to lat
47[deg]41'18'' N, long 112[deg]36'32'' W, to lat 47[deg]40'32.29''
N, long 112[deg]32'46.33'' W, to lat 46[deg]01'40.93'' N, long
112[deg]32'45.82'' W, to lat 46[deg]02'0.0'' N, long
113[deg]20'0.0'' W, to lat 46[deg]02'0.0'' N, long 115[deg]0.0'0.0''
W, to lat 46[deg]40'0.0'' N, long 115[deg]0.0'0.0'' W, to lat
46[deg]40'0.0'' N, long 115[deg]45'0.0'' W, then to the point of
beginning.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 1, 2021.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-14564 Filed 7-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Final

Supporting Statement

for

Information Collection Request

Motor Vehicle Emissions:

Revisions to Certification of Alternative Fuels Conversions

EPA ICR 0783.59

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Part A SUBMISSION Section 1: Identification Of The Information
Collection

1(a) Title And Number Of The Information Collection

	Motor Vehicle Emissions: Revisions to Certification of Alternative
Fuels Conversions; EPA ICR number 0783.59, OMB control number 2060-0104.

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

	The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing a rule that is
designed to simplify and lessen the burdens for conversion manufacturers
seeking approval to introduce into commerce in the U.S. light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, and
heavy-duty vehicles and engines that have been converted for use of
fuels that the original models were not designed for, such as from
gasoline to liquid propane gas (LPG) or compressed natural gas (CNG).
This ICR covers the light-duty portion of the rule. These applications
are currently administratively handled as a part of EPA’s motor
vehicle and engine certification program, covered by the ICR 0783
series. This ICR addresses the anticipated paperwork burden reduction
within the context of the existing baseline from OMB 2060-0104 (ICR
0783.54), which was approved on August 31, 2009.

	These changes would start taking effect with 2011 model year light-duty
or medium-duty vehicles and trucks or upon the effective date of the
final rule.  Starting then, manufacturers will be given expanded options
for submitting a simplified notification process in some cases. ICRs
normally have a three year time horizon. This ICR will cover the
expected paperwork burden changes for the three years after the
effective date of the final rule.

	Information collected under the previous alternative fuels conversion
program consisted of test results and related submissions under existing
procedures for the EPA light-duty vehicle certification program.  All
information from converter applicants is currently submitted
electronically directly to the Verify system.  Subject to
confidentiality claims, this information is made available to interested
parties upon request.  Emission test information is available on the
internet.

	The burden analysis in this ICR differs from the cost analysis in the
preamble to the rule in important respects. First, ICRs are concerned
with paperwork burdens, a subset of all business costs; this ICR covers
the costs and labor hours of providing information to EPA, including
both the paperwork itself and the costs and labor to develop the
information, such as testing to provide test results, and facilities to
carry out that testing. It is not concerned with the costs of compliance
in general, nor with general business overhead or profits.  The
preamble, on the other hand, focuses on costs incurred by conversion
manufacturers such as contracts by converters with testing companies,
which include overhead, profit and possibly compliance elements not
counted in the 0783 series. The analysis in this ICR uses the
traditional capital cost, O&M cost, and labor cost assumptions in this
ICR series, so that, for example, facility costs that would be recovered
as part of a consulting firm's contract are here allocated to capital
costs. Second, the preamble focuses on the burden for a single converter
enterprise of interest, whereas the ICR attempts to generalize the
analysis to the industry as a whole.

	The existing baseline estimates that certification applications for 36
test groups from five converter respondents are submitted annually.
During the proposal phase of this rule, the most recent model year data
available (model year 2008) showed 18 light-duty vehicle conversions,
and the draft ICR (0783.55) baseline was adjusted accordingly. However,
the number of certificates steadily increased in 2009 and 2010.  In
2010, there were 42 new certificates issued for 7 different conversion
manufacturers. Following this upward trend, this ICR adjusts the
baseline to 50 new conversions from 8 conversion manufacturers and
calculates industry savings against that number. The adjusted baseline
also assumes 50 carryover applications. The analysis also gives the
change in the 0783 ICR overall collection with the adjusted baseline
after savings.

	These test groups consist of conversion systems that apply to a
specific certified OEM (original equipment manufacturer) vehicle test
group, or in some cases combinations of OEM test groups. As with OEM
certifications, the biggest paperwork cost component for converters is
testing. However, estimating testing costs under the existing
regulations has been difficult because the  fuel conversion program
encompasses a diverse range of circumstances. Many of the tests are
currently waived in certain situations. For example, currently,
evaporative testing may or may not be waived depending on whether a
closed fuel system is used. Exhaust and evaporative emission testing can
be waived for dual-fueled gasoline/LPG or gasoline/CNG vehicles if the
modification doesn’t increase the weight more than 500 pounds and no
increase in emissions is expected. (Assumptions for dealing with these
complexities both in the existing program and under the final rule are
discussed in Section 6.)

	The current baseline program costs applied to 50 new test group
applications estimates an industry total paperwork cost of $380,828. As
with the main light-duty program, this does not include development
costs (such as repeated testing needed to perfect a conversion kit that
can meet emission and OBD standards), which are not directly mandated by
the Clean Air Act but which can be considerable. Other elements of the
alternative fuels certification process covered by this ICR are listed
in Part 4 below, including paperwork filing burdens, which are budgeted
in the ICR as O&M costs and labor hours. Converted vehicles are also, as
with other certified vehicles, subject to EPA's confirmatory testing
program, durability demonstration, Vehicle Emission Control Information
(VECI) labeling, defect and voluntary emission recall reporting, and
other light-duty requirements (all covered in ICR 0783). In addition,
they are subject to EPA’s certification fee requirements (ICR 2080;
OMB 2060-0545) but burden changes in this program is de minimis (the
number of fee forms affected is small and will be reflected in the next
fees ICR renewal). All burden elements in this ICR are in the Emissions
(Certification) IC.

	The proposed changes will recognize three classes of conversions: to
(1) vehicles that are new or relatively new, (2) vehicles within EPA’s
definition of useful life but which are neither new nor relatively new
(“intermediate age vehicles”), and (3) vehicles that are outside
EPA’s definition of useful life.  For the newest vehicles,
certification will still be required, but with some additional
flexibilities and expansion of options.  Conversion of intermediate age
vehicles will be not be certified but audited through reporting of a
testing demonstration that the converted vehicle family still meets
emissions standards certified for the OEM vehicle family. For conversion
of outside useful life vehicles EPA is finalizing a requirement for
information submission demonstrating that the conversion is technically
viable and will not increase emissions.

	Beginning in model year 2011 or the effective date of these
regulations, the proposed changes will reduce total costs annually on
the regulated manufacturers by $195,735 in non-labor costs and 23,267
labor hours.

	Additional details on the coverage of this ICR are given in Section
2(b), below.

Section 2: Need For And Use of the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority For The Collection

	Under Title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.), EPA is
charged with issuing certificates of conformity for motor vehicle
designs that comply with applicable emission standards set under section
202(a)(1) of the Act.  A manufacturer must have a certificate before
vehicles may be legally introduced into commerce.  To insure compliance
with the Act, EPA reviews product information and manufacturer test
results; EPA also tests some vehicles to confirm manufacturer results.

	Section 203 of the Clean Air Act contains “anti-tampering”
provisions prohibiting alteration of OEM vehicle components relevant to
the vehicle’s certification under the Act.  Regulations at 40 CFR,
Part 85, Subpart F, provide exemption for aftermarket conversion systems
from these tampering prohibitions for those converters complying with
the regulations of that Part. Under Subpart F, these exemptions are
currently administered through a certification process that is modeled
on the OEM certification provisions: converters submit certification
requests for engine families, and those that satisfy EPA’s regulations
upon review are granted certificates of conformity for one model year.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	The information collection under the rule would be used to determine
whether the new requirements have been complied with by means of the
revised certification and compliance program.

Section 3: Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) Nonduplication

	The information collection, reporting, and storage provisions of the
proposed rule rely to the maximum extent possible on EPA’s existing
certification program, while simplifying that program to reflect the
needs of this industry.

	Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication in this information
collection.    EPA-CISD (Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division)
is currently using, for light-duty vehicles, a new information
management system (Verify), under which the manufacturer submission
process will occur within a Central Data Exchange (CDX) environment that
should further help minimize duplication in submissions.

	Because of its specialized nature and the fact that product plans and
emission performance information must be submitted to EPA prior to the
start of production, this information is not available from any source
other than the manufacturer.

3(b) Public Notice Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	EPA solicited public comment by means of a Federal Register Notice
published on May 26,  2010, 75 Federal Register 29606; a copy can be
found at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov
under docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299. The draft ICR was placed in the
docket. No comments were received.

3(c) Consultations

	The proposed regulations, including the cost analysis that is reflected
in this ICR, were developed based on experience with similar regulations
developed in the past in close consultation with the affected industry.
EPA sought and received significant input and feedback from the fuel
conversion community.

	In preparing the proposed rule, EPA made use of consultations with
several converters and an independent test lab working in the regulated
industry.

	Their comments have been considered in developing the burden estimates
discussed below. EPA wishes to thank them and their colleagues for their
assistance in preparing this report.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

As required by the Clean Air Act ( at 42 USC 7525(a)), emission
information is currently submitted on a yearly basis coinciding with the
manufacturer’s “model year.”  EPA allows applicants to define
their own “model year”, thus granting some flexibility in this
regard.  Major product changes typically occur at the start of a model
year. For these reasons, a collection frequency longer than a model year
is not normally possible.  However, this rule would replace the annual
application process with a one-time submittal for intermediate age and
outside useful life vehicles, only requiring an end-of-year sales volume
submission. In addition many conversion manufacturers will no longer
need to renew their certificate of conformity; if the OEM vehicle design
is “carried over” to a subsequent model year, the amount of new
information required is substantially reduced or eliminated.

3(e) General Guidelines

	Manufacturers are required to keep some records for periods longer than
three years. This requirement stems from the statutory requirement that
manufacturers warrant some items for periods longer than 3 years.

	This information collection activity complies with the remaining
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5.  The proposal makes no changes in the
reporting and recordkeeping provisions that impact any of the guidelines
for information collections as approved in the existing approved
collection.

3(f) Confidentiality

	Information submitted by manufacturers is held as confidential until
the specific vehicle to which it pertains is available for purchase.
After vehicles are available, most information associated with the
manufacturer’s application is available to the public.  Under section
208 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7542(c)) all information, other than
trade secret processes or methods, must be publicly available.
Proprietary information is granted confidentiality in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, and
class determinations issued by EPA’s Office of General Counsel.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

	No sensitive questions are asked in this information collection.  This
collection complies with the Privacy Act and OMB Circular A-108.

Section 4: Respondents and Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/NASIC Codes

	The respondents are potentially involved in the industries shown in the
following table:

Industry	335312A

336312

336322

336399

454312

485310	Alternative fuel vehicle converters

A North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items

	The information and reporting burden associated with this rule occurs
within the context of EPA’s motor vehicle certification and compliance
program.  Current regulations require converters to submit emissions
information to EPA in conjunction with this program.  Converters of
newer vehicles must submit an application for emission certification
prior to production.  Intermediately aged vehicle converters will submit
a testing demonstration without the burdens of the formal certification
application process. For vehicles converted outside their useful life,
regulation will be through an information submission that the conversion
is technically viable and will not increase emissions.  These reporting
formats describe the major aspects of the proposed product line,
technical details of the emission control systems, and the results of
any required tests to indicate compliance with the emissions
limitations.  The reports and supporting test results are reviewed and,
if appropriate, a certificate of conformity is issued, the applicant is
notified of possible noncompliance with anti-tampering provisions, or
additional post-production information is requested.

	New/revised data items:

	At the time of certification:

		For all vehicles:

expanded  conversion test or "demonstration" groups

exemption from HCHO testing for conversions to CNG and LPG

conversion factors for calculating NMOG for conversions to CNG and LPG

new VECI label requirement describing test group, mileage, and date

renewal application for certificates for “carryover” test groups is
optional

For intermediate-age and outside useful-life age vehicles (25%):

online notification and test result report rather than application for
certification (savings in “paperwork” burden) or compliance
“demonstration” for outside useful-life conversions

description of OBD compliance strategy and for intermediate-age vehicles
an OBD scan tool report rather than current OBD test results

(ii) Respondent Activities

	While there is no “typical” converter respondent, all converters
must describe their product and supply test data and other information
to verify compliance. In some cases the proposal would replace the
current application and certification process with a notification and
audit process. Applicants for certification submit certification fees,
usually “reduced fees” set at 1% of the estimated retail sales value
of the conversion package, including labor. Converters or installers of
conversion kits must install a second VECI label on converted vehicles.
Converters must also retain records.  These tasks may be repeated for
each conversion model year, although  previous data and information may
be “carried over” when no changes have occurred. Carryover,
intermediate and outside useful-life test group manufacturers will
continue to be subject to the end-of-model-year sales reporting through
the same existing Verify reporting module that applies to their new test
groups.

Section 5: The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

Agency Activities

	The test data used by EPA to determine compliance with emissions
standards are derived from vehicle testing done by vehicle converters
who report their own test data to EPA, and at EPA's National Vehicle and
Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  EPA staff review
applications (or notifications or demonstrations), issue certificates,
and oversee the program.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

	  All information from converter applicants will be submitted
electronically directly to the Verify system by the effective date of
the new rule.  By guidance letter CISD-09-14, vehicle converters are
required to submit applications for certification through Verify
beginning with the 2010 model year. The rule makes no changes in this
reporting system, only changing the format and content of some of the
information reported within it.

	All information received by EPA is subject to review.  Data submitted
are screened to determine that the test results insure compliance with
emission and fuel economy standards.  Narrative descriptions of the
proposed product line are checked to verify that the appropriate "worst
case" vehicles have been tested. Except for projected sales and a very
limited amount of proprietary product information, all information is
available to the public as soon as the vehicle is offered for sale.
Emission data are available on the internet; other information is
available upon request under the Freedom of Information Act.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

	Many conversion manufacturers  already enjoy various exemptions and
special provisions tailored to their small entity status and special
business needs in contrast to original vehicle manufacturers, such as
use of assigned deterioration factors, exemption from the
manufacturers’ in-use vehicle testing program (IUVP) and availability
of reduced certification fees. This proposal further extends this
flexibility in numerous ways detailed in the proposal and summarized in
this Supporting Statement.

5(d) Collection Schedule

	Currently, information must be submitted for each “conversion model
year” that a manufacturer intends to convert vehicles. Under the final
rule, only the newest vehicles will be required to renew annually, if a
new certificate is desired, but all categories will file an end-of-year
report (as do light-duty manufacturers). For emissions purposes, a
“model year” is statutorily defined as the annual production period
of a manufacturer, as decided by the Administrator, that includes
January 1 of that calendar year; or  that calendar year if the
manufacturer does not have an annual production period.  If a product is
unchanged between model years, much of the information can be “carried
over.”  The collection frequency and burden are determined to a large
extent by the manufacturer’s marketing and production plans.

Section 6: Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

	The following estimates of reduced burden use baselines and
methodologies developed in the process of continuing updates of the 0783
ICR series, including the last renewal (ICR 0783.54), and the greenhouse
gasses rule (ICR 2387.01).  The reasoning behind estimates of decreased
burden from the current baseline are given below and summarized in
Section 6(f).

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden (Hours)

	As noted above, the number of converter test groups covered by the ICR
is subject to small number fluctuations as well as a recent upward
trend. The baseline in the last renewal (ICR 0783.54) was 36 test
groups; in the renewal three years before that (ICR 0783.47) it was 15.
Following normal practice, the baseline is here adjusted to reflect the
most current information available; we predict 50 new light-duty
conversion test groups for Model Year 2011. The Emissions IC will
reflect this adjustment. The discussions below compare the burdens on 50
families before and after the proposal.

	Within the converter program under the adjusted baseline, the
respondent hours burden decrease for the Light-Duty Vehicle Emissions
Information Collection reflects reduced labor hours associated with
conducting tests and reduced reporting. This is largely due to the
broader definition of test groups, since this definition determines how
many tests must be conducted. The paperwork reporting burdens in
particular are significantly reduced for intermediate and outside
useful-life conversions. As converters are a very small subset of the
current light-duty baseline (prior to this ICR, 36 out of 427 families,
after this ICR, 50 reduced to 38 out of 429), the decrease in burden is
correspondingly small; but for vehicle converters the hour savings are
significant (from 41,802 hours down to 18,535 hours, a savings of over
45% (23,267 hours).

	In particular, the number of test groups requiring any reporting under
this rule is estimated to be reduced by at least 25 percent. This
correspondingly reduces the labor hours associated with conducting
emissions tests (including preparation costs, FTP tests, NMOG tests and
HFET tests), OBD compliance reporting, confirmatory testing costs
(including shipment costs), and paperwork reporting and recordkeeping
costs associated with preparing this information in any of the required
formats and submitting it to EPA for review and saving it for possible
submission to EPA upon request. Intermediate age and outside useful life
conversion test groups are estimated to achieve an additional 80 percent
reduction in paperwork reporting for those qualifying.

	The ICR includes a minor startup cost for implementing new labeling
requirements. All labor hours associated with startup costs are treated
as capital/startup costs, so they are included under that heading,
following EPA guidance (EPA ICR Handbook, Rev. 11/05, p. A-31).

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

Estimating labor costs

	Labor costs for testing follow the testing labor cost assumptions of
ICR 0783.54 and average out to $59.07 per hour across management,
technical, and secretarial categories. This figure, which was initially
based on the fees rule cost study of EPA laboratory expenses, matches
very closely with an analysis based on rates for engineering managers,
mechanical engineers, and secretaries (except legal, medical, and
executive) from the May 2005 BLS National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates
(http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm , accessed August 22,
2006). With a 160% overhead multiplier, these are $81.38, $49.71, and
$33.57, respectively. The next renewal of the ICR will likely update
this figure.

(ii) Estimating Operations and Maintenance Costs

	Operation and Maintenance costs are the non-labor costs associated with
conducting the new tests that are anticipated for the full model year
after the effective date of the new regulations.  The O&M costs for
conducting emissions tests follow the assumptions in prior ICRs in this
series, with an improved figure for NMOG and HCHO analysis, totaling
about $4,000 per vehicle, with another $3,600 for OBD compliance (about
$50 for intermediate- age OBD scan tool test) and $2,000 for each
confirmatory test. The estimate also includes O&M items for evaporative
emissions testing, and reporting and recordkeeping, with the baseline
total coming to about $10,000 per activity (test group). Applied to the
industry, the baseline O&M cost is $380,828 annually. The revised
regulation reduces this figure by $195,735, to $185,093. This is
primarily due to 1) reduction in the number of test groups by at least
25%; and 2) savings of $1,750 in NMOG and HCHO testing per test group.

(iii)  Start-up and Other Capital Costs

	“Startup” costs are one-time costs to implement the new
requirements in the proposal that are applicable to the next model year
conversions being certified or by the respondent converters after the
effective date of the final rule.

	Startup costs are included for redesign of the VECI label.  This burden
is an add-on to well established reporting requirements: manufacturers
already submit similar label data to EPA.  Once the new label templates
are in place, we anticipate no increase in burden for this startup item.
 This part of the estimate costs new analysis and coding for 50 test
groups, reduced to 38 by the new rule. This is a small item, less than
$10,000 for the industry, and is annualized and discounted at 7% in the
cost estimate.

	Second this ICR series estimates capital costs associated with the
testing requirements. Because manufacturers vary widely in their
existing testing facilities, their excess capacities, their work shift
arrangements and availabilities, the real estate cost and land
availabilities for hypothetical expansions, and their contractual
arrangements with other testing facilities, CISD has for many year now
used the approximation that a facility capable of performing 750
FTP/HFET tests per year costs $4,000,000 and allocated this cost to each
testing increment. This cost is then allocated over ten years and
discounted at 7%. This methodology is considered conservative, because
it assumes no excess capacity. Similarly, evaporative facilities are
costed at $3,000,000 to conduct 900 evaporative tests a year. While most
converters work through contractors whose contract costs do not break
down costs in this manner, for consistency the analysis in the
Certification IC series 0783 is continued here.

	Primarily due to the reduction in the number of test groups (slightly
offset by the new labeling startup) he total non-depreciated capital
costs for the conversion program of $318,333 are reduced by $146,400 to
$171,933.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden

	The emission and fuel economy compliance programs are primarily
administered by EPA’s Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division
and Laboratory Operations Division.  Approximately 47.5 full time
employee equivalents are directly involved in the combined emission and
fuel economy light-duty, motorcycle, and other, secondary programs;
their cost is approximately $5.9 million, including benefits but not
overhead.  EPA also participates in a program whereby the agency
contracts with an organization that provides qualified persons to
perform duties for the agency that are not performed by EPA employees.
The cost associated with these persons who work directly on these
programs is approximately $0.23 million, excluding overhead.   Overhead
percentage for the entire division is approximately 16.9%, yielding an
estimated total agency labor cost of $7.17 million. The total
non-capital costs for the light-duty and motorcycle programs, including
direct and indirect labor, operations and maintenance, and overhead, is
estimated as $11.14 million for FY 2007.

	Implementation of the new alternative fuels rule will be carried out by
existing staff. Other ongoing database management, oversight, and
certification activities are part of the fuel economy and emissions
program Agency baseline.  All EPA labor estimates are based on Office of
Personnel Management draft annual pay rates effective January, 2008,
with a 1.6 multiplier for overhead based on EPA’s latest fees cost
allocation study (1.37 indirect program cost overhead times 1.16 overall
EPA overhead).  This estimate does not include Agency burdens incurred
prior to the effective date of the rule, such as costs of developing the
rule and preliminary consultations with converters.

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	From the above discussion the following total burden and cost estimates
can be calculated.  (Due to the diverse nature of the converter
industry, there is no typical or average respondent.)

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

(i)  Respondent Tally

[a] Overall Emissions IC

	This analysis is against the Emissions IC baseline in ICR 0783.54. EPA
has another recent rulemaking (Revisions to Reduce Emissions of
Greenhouse Gases; EPA ICR 2387.01) which will result in other changes.

[1] Existing authorization

RESPONDENTS	35

BURDEN HOURS	362,033

LABOR COST	$6,308,800

OPERATING COST	$5,929,702

CAPITALIZED COST	$2,256,127

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	$8,185,829

[2] After final rule

RESPONDENTS	38

BURDEN HOURS	350,830

LABOR COST	$5,612,,466

OPERATING COST	$5,848,800

CAPITALIZED COST	$2,247,926

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	$8,096,726

[3] Change in burden

BURDEN HOURS	-11,203

LABOR COST	-$696,334

OPERATING COST	-$80,920

CAPITALIZED COST	-$8,201

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	-$89,103

[b] Alternative Fuels Converters

[1] Existing baseline

RESPONDENTS	5

FAMILIES	36

BURDEN HOURS	29,738

LABOR COST	$1,756,606

OPERATING COST	$241,566

CAPITALIZED COST	$32,630

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	$274,196

[2] After final rule

RESPONDENTS	8

FAMILIES (75% OF 50)	38

BURDEN HOURS	18,535

LABOR COST	$1,060,272

OPERATING COST	$160,664

CAPITALIZED COST	$24,429

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	$185,093

[3] Change in burden

BURDEN HOURS	-11,203

LABOR COST	-$696,334

OPERATING COST	-$80,920

CAPITALIZED COST	-$8,201

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	-$89,103

[4] Reduction in burden applied to 50 families without final rule
changes

BURDEN HOURS	-23,267

LABOR COST	-$1,408,994

OPERATING COST	-$174,845

CAPITALIZED COST	-$20,890

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST	-$195,735

(ii)  Agency Tally

EMPLOYEES	47.5

CONTRACT LABOR COST	$0.27 million

COST	$11.1  million

6(f) Reasons for change in burden

	The burden change is from changes in the baseline number of test
groups, a reduction in the number of test groups after accounting for
this baseline change, and reductions in the capital and operations and
maintenance costs and labor hours associated with implementing the new
programs detailed above.

6(g) Burden Statement

	The table in Section 6(e)(i)[b][2] presents the total estimated burden
for the alternative fuels conversion light-duty program after the final
rule: approximately 18,535 hours per year, with total annual capitalized
and O&M costs estimated at $185,093. These represent a savings of 11,203
hours and $89,103 over the existing alternative fuels light-duty
baseline, notwithstanding application of program costs to an increased
number of manufacturers and test groups. The annual costs and hours for
information collection activities by a given manufacturer under any of
the options in this proposed rule depend upon manufacturer-specific
variables, such as the number of different test groups and the number of
vehicles tested.  The estimated number of likely respondent
manufacturers is 8.  The responses will be submitted annually and
occasionally as a part of the existing EPA certification program.

	Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this
ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299.  Submit any comments
related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB.  Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299, by one of
the following methods:

	•	www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
				comments.

	•	Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

	•	Mail:  Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Air 		and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., 			Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299.  		In addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information 				collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, 			Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 			7th St. NW., Washington, DC
20503.”

	•	Hand Delivery: Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC., Attention Docket ID No. OAR-
2009-0299.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal 			hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made
for deliveries 			of boxed information

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299, is available
for public viewing at the Air And Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room  is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
 The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is also (202)
566-1744.  An electronic version of the public docket is available
through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov .

 PAGE

 PAGE   7


Recreational Participation Percentages ( recpcts. sd2)

Average number of boating, near water, and swimming recreation days per season by state, along with the percentage of the population participating in boating, near water, and swimming by state.

Data Element Definitions STATE  State two letter abbreviation PCTBOAT  Percentage of state population participating in boating PCTVIEW  Percentage of state population participating in view PCTFISH  Percentage of state population participating in fishing PCTSWIM  Percentage of state population participating in swimming AVGBTRS  Average number of participants per boating trip AVGVWRS  Average number of participants per viewing trip AVGFISH  Average number of participants per fishing trip AVGSWIM  Average number of participants per swimming trip BOATTRP  Average number of boating trips per season VIEWTRP  Average number of viewing trips per season FISHTRP  Average number of fishing trips per season SWIMTRP  Average number of swimming trips per season


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12690]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04760]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9553-01-OMS]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (NDEE)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) approval of the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy
(NDEE) request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs
to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA approves the authorized program revisions/modifications as
of March 7, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley M. Miller, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Information Management, Mail Stop 2824T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On January 10, 2022, the Nebraska Department of Environment and
Energy (NDEE) submitted an application titled NPDES Electronic
Reporting Tool for Pesticide General Permit (NeTPGP) for revisions/
modifications to its EPA-approved programs under title 40 CFR to allow
new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed NDEE's request to revise/modify
its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined
that the application met the standards for approval of authorized
program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In
accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to
approve NDEE's request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized
programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR is being published
in the Federal Register:

Part 123: EPA-Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Reporting under 40 CFR 122 and 125

    NDEE was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application
with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

    Dated: March 1, 2022.
Jennifer Campbell,
Director, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2022-04760 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P