Revisions to Consolidated Federal Air Rule, 48953-48956 [E7-16835]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 165 / Monday, August 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules Richard Hurst, (202) 622–7180 (not tollfree numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS Background and Explanation of Provisions These proposed regulations clarify the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 6411 relating to the computation and allowance of the tentative carryback adjustment. The tentative allowance is computed pursuant to § 1.6411–2 but applied pursuant to § 1.6411–3. These regulations clarify that for purposes of computing the allowance, the Commissioner will not consider amounts to which the taxpayer and the Commissioner are in disagreement. For purposes of applying the allowance, however, the Commissioner may credit or reduce the tentative adjustment by any assessed tax liabilities, unassessed liabilities determined in a statutory notice of deficiency, unassessed liabilities identified in a proof of claim filed in a bankruptcy proceeding, and other unassessed liabilities in rare and unusual circumstances. Regarding unassessed liabilities determined in a statutory notice of deficiency, see Rev. Rul. 2007–51. Regarding unassessed liabilities identified in a proof of claim filed in a bankruptcy proceeding, see Rev. Rul. 2007–52. See § 601.601(d)(2). The IRS plans to adopt procedures requiring IRS National Office review prior to a credit or reduction of the tentative adjustment by an unassessed liability that constitutes a rare and unusual circumstance. In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, the IRS is issuing temporary regulations relating to the computation and allowance of the tentative carryback adjustment under section 6411 of the Internal Revenue Code. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations. Proposed Effective Date These proposed amendments to §§ 1.6411–2 and 1.6411–3 apply with respect to applications for tentative refund filed on or after the date these rules are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. No implication is intended concerning whether or not a rule to be adopted in these regulations is applicable law for applications filed prior to that date. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:40 Aug 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any electronic and written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed regulations and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested in writing by a person who timely submits comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the Federal Register. Drafting Information List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Par. 2. Section 1.6411–2 is revised to read as follows: § 1.6411–2 Computation of tentative carryback adjustment. (a) [The text of proposed § 1.6411–2(a) is the same as the text of § 1.6411–2T(a) Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register]. (b) [The text of proposed § 1.6411– 2(b) is the same as the text of § 1.6411– 2T(b) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register]. Par. 3. Section 1.6411–3 is revised to read as follows: § 1.6411–3 Allowance of adjustments. (a) [The text of proposed § 1.6411–3(a) is the same as the text of § 1.6411–3T(a) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register]. (b) [The text of proposed § 1.6411– 3(b) is the same as the text of § 1.6411– 3T(b) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register]. (c) [The text of proposed § 1.6411–3(c) is the same as the text of § 1.6411–3T(c) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register]. (d) [The text of proposed § 1.6411– 3(d) is the same as the text of § 1.6411– 3T(d) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register]. Kevin M. Brown, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7–16876 Filed 8–24–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 65 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0429; FRL–8459–6] RIN 2060–A045 The principal author of these regulations is Cynthia A. McGreevy of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). PO 00000 48953 Sfmt 4702 Revisions to Consolidated Federal Air Rule Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions for Consolidated Federal Air Rule. On May 16, 2007, we published a final rule that revised the General Provisions for Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories to allow extensions to the deadline imposed for source owners and operators to conduct initial or other required performance tests in certain specified force majeure circumstances. We recently realized that we should have also revised the Consolidated Federal Air Rule to allow similar extensions. DATES: Written comments must be received by September 26, 2007. E:\FR\FM\27AUP1.SGM 27AUP1 48954 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 165 / Monday, August 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2007–0429 by mail to Revisions to Consolidated Federal Air Rule, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/ courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Ms. Lula Melton, Air Quality Assessment Division (C304–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 2910; fax number: (919) 541–4511; email address ‘‘melton.lula@epa.gov.’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule? This document proposes to take action on Revisions to the Consolidated Federal Air Rule. We have published a direct final rule to revise the Consolidated Federal Air Rule to allow extensions to the deadline imposed for source owners and operators to conduct performance tests in certain specified force majeure circumstances in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register. These revisions would mirror those contained in a May 16, 2007 final rule revising the General Provisions for Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories to allow extensions to the deadline imposed for source owners and operators to conduct initial or other required performance tests in certain specified force majeure circumstances. We recently realized that we should have also revised the Consolidated Federal Air Rule for the same reasons. We view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule, and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule base on this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:40 Aug 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register. For further supplementary information, the detailed rationale for the proposal and the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule published in a separate part of this Federal Register. II. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action applies to any owner or operator of a source required to conduct performance testing to demonstrate compliance with applicable standards under the General Provisions for Consolidated Federal Air Rule. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Reviews This action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. xxxx. The proposed rule would require a written notification only if a plant owner or operator needs an extension of a performance test deadline due to certain rare events, such as acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility. Since EPA believes such events will be rare, the projected cost and hour burden will be minimal. The increased annual average reporting burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years of the ICR) is estimated to total 6 labor hours per year at a cost of $377.52. This includes one response per year from six respondents for an average of 1 hour per response. No capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are associated with the proposed reporting requirements. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today’s proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Extensions to deadlines for conducting performance tests will provide flexibility to small entities and reduce the burden on them by providing them an opportunity for additional time to comply with performance test deadlines during force majeure events. Furthermore, we expect force majeure events to be rare since these events include circumstances such as acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility. E:\FR\FM\27AUP1.SGM 27AUP1 rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 165 / Monday, August 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result in expenditures to State, Local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The maximum total annual cost of this proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be less than $435.00. Thus, today’s proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that the proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed rule requires source owners and operators to provide a written VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:40 Aug 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 notification to the Agency only if an extension to a performance test deadline is necessary due to a rare force majeure event. Therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule requirements will not supersede State regulations that are more stringent. In addition, the proposed rule requires a written notification only if a plant owner or operator needs an extension of a performance test deadline due to certain rare events, such as acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility. Since EPA believes that such events will be rare, the projected cost and hour burden will be minimal. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.’’ This proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 48955 government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the Agency does not have reason to believe that the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This rule does not affect the underlying control requirements established by the applicable standards but only the timeframe associated with performance testing in limited circumstances. H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of E:\FR\FM\27AUP1.SGM 27AUP1 48956 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 165 / Monday, August 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules protection provided to human health or the environment. The rule merely allows extensions to performance test deadlines in rare force majeure events. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use [EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–1016; FRL–8461–2] The proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. New test methods are not being proposed in this rulemaking, but EPA is allowing for extensions of the regulatory deadlines by which owners or operators are required to conduct performance tests when a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred which prevents owners or operators from testing within the regulatory deadline. Therefore, NTTAA does not apply. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 65 rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 17, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7–16835 Filed 8–24–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:40 Aug 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 40 CFR Part 82 RIN 2060–A030 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 2008 Critical Use Exemption From the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an exemption to the phaseout of methyl bromide to meet the needs of 2008 critical uses. Specifically, EPA is proposing uses that qualify for the 2008 critical use exemption and the amount of methyl bromide that may be produced, imported, or supplied from existing stocks for those uses in 2008. EPA is taking action under the authority of the Clean Air Act to reflect recent consensus decisions taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol) at the 18th Meeting of the Parties (MOP). EPA is seeking comment on the list of critical uses and on EPA’s determination of the amounts of methyl bromide needed to satisfy those uses. DATES: Comments must be submitted by September 26, 2007. Any party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact person listed below by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on September 4, 2007. If a hearing is requested it will be held on September 11, 2007 and comments will be due to the Agency October 11, 2007. EPA will post information regarding a hearing, if one is requested, on the Ozone Protection Web site https://www.epa.gov/ ozone. Persons interested in attending a public hearing should consult with the contact person below regarding the location and time of the hearing. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2006–1016, by one of the following methods: • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. • Fax: 202–566–1741. • Mail: Docket #, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • Hand Delivery: Docket # EPA–HQ– OAR–2006–1016, Air and Radiation Docket at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 6102T, 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: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 1016. 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 email 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. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this proposed rule, contact Aaron Levy by telephone at (202) 343–9215, or by e-mail at levy.aaron@epa.gov or by mail at Aaron Levy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, Stratospheric Program Implementation Branch (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also visit the Ozone Depletion Web site of EPA’s Stratospheric Protection Division at www.epa.gov/ozone for further information about EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone Protection regulations, the science of ozone layer depletion, and other related topics. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule concerns Clean Air Act E:\FR\FM\27AUP1.SGM 27AUP1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 165 (Monday, August 27, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48953-48956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16835]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 65

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0429; FRL-8459-6]
RIN 2060-A045


Revisions to Consolidated Federal Air Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions for 
Consolidated Federal Air Rule. On May 16, 2007, we published a final 
rule that revised the General Provisions for Standards of Performance 
for New Stationary Sources, for National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and for National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories to allow extensions to 
the deadline imposed for source owners and operators to conduct initial 
or other required performance tests in certain specified force majeure 
circumstances. We recently realized that we should have also revised 
the Consolidated Federal Air Rule to allow similar extensions.

DATES: Written comments must be received by September 26, 2007.

[[Page 48954]]


ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0429 by mail to Revisions to Consolidated Federal Air Rule, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. 
Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/
courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section 
of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lula Melton, Air Quality 
Assessment Division (C304-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2910; fax 
number: (919) 541-4511; e-mail address ``melton.lula@epa.gov.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule?

    This document proposes to take action on Revisions to the 
Consolidated Federal Air Rule. We have published a direct final rule to 
revise the Consolidated Federal Air Rule to allow extensions to the 
deadline imposed for source owners and operators to conduct performance 
tests in certain specified force majeure circumstances in the ``Rules 
and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register. These revisions 
would mirror those contained in a May 16, 2007 final rule revising the 
General Provisions for Standards of Performance for New Stationary 
Sources, for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 
and for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Categories to allow extensions to the deadline imposed for 
source owners and operators to conduct initial or other required 
performance tests in certain specified force majeure circumstances. We 
recently realized that we should have also revised the Consolidated 
Federal Air Rule for the same reasons. We view this as a non-
controversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have 
explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct 
final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action 
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw 
the direct final rule, and it will not take effect. We would address 
all public comments in any subsequent final rule base on this proposed 
rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this 
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
    The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the 
direct final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of 
this Federal Register. For further supplementary information, the 
detailed rationale for the proposal and the regulatory revisions, see 
the direct final rule published in a separate part of this Federal 
Register.

II. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to any owner or operator of a source required 
to conduct performance testing to demonstrate compliance with 
applicable standards under the General Provisions for Consolidated 
Federal Air Rule.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Reviews

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR No. xxxx.
    The proposed rule would require a written notification only if a 
plant owner or operator needs an extension of a performance test 
deadline due to certain rare events, such as acts of nature, acts of 
war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the 
control of the affected facility. Since EPA believes such events will 
be rare, the projected cost and hour burden will be minimal.
    The increased annual average reporting burden for this collection 
(averaged over the first 3 years of the ICR) is estimated to total 6 
labor hours per year at a cost of $377.52. This includes one response 
per year from six respondents for an average of 1 hour per response. No 
capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs are associated 
with the proposed reporting requirements. 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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a 
city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Extensions 
to deadlines for conducting performance tests will provide flexibility 
to small entities and reduce the burden on them by providing them an 
opportunity for additional time to comply with performance test 
deadlines during force majeure events. Furthermore, we expect force 
majeure events to be rare since these events include circumstances such 
as acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or 
safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility.

[[Page 48955]]

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, Local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed, 
under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan 
must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, 
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and 
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with 
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, 
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the 
regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any one year. The maximum total annual cost of this 
proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be less than $435.00. 
Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that the proposed rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. The proposed rule requires source owners and operators to 
provide a written notification to the Agency only if an extension to a 
performance test deadline is necessary due to a rare force majeure 
event. Therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements 
of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule requirements 
will not supersede State regulations that are more stringent. In 
addition, the proposed rule requires a written notification only if a 
plant owner or operator needs an extension of a performance test 
deadline due to certain rare events, such as acts of nature, acts of 
war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the 
control of the affected facility. Since EPA believes that such events 
will be rare, the projected cost and hour burden will be minimal. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This 
proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically 
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the Agency 
does not have reason to believe that the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This rule does not affect the underlying control requirements 
established by the applicable standards but only the timeframe 
associated with performance testing in limited circumstances.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of

[[Page 48956]]

protection provided to human health or the environment. The rule merely 
allows extensions to performance test deadlines in rare force majeure 
events.

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

    The proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined 
in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. New 
test methods are not being proposed in this rulemaking, but EPA is 
allowing for extensions of the regulatory deadlines by which owners or 
operators are required to conduct performance tests when a force 
majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred which prevents 
owners or operators from testing within the regulatory deadline. 
Therefore, NTTAA does not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 65

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 17, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-16835 Filed 8-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.