51184 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Notices 

Title: Restructuring of Stationary 

Source Audit Program. 

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2355.03, 

OMB Control No. 2060–0652. 

ICR status: This ICR is currently 

scheduled to expire on January 31, 

2014. An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 

title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in 

the Federal Register when approved, 

are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are 

displayed either by publication in the or 

by other appropriate means, such as on 

the related collection instrument or 

form, if applicable. The display of OMB 

control numbers in certain EPA 

regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR 

part 9. 

Abstract: This ICR concerns the 

reporting of the true value of the audit 

sample to the compliance authority 

(state, local or EPA Regional Office) by 

the accredited audit sample provider 

(AASP) as required in the General 

Provisions of Parts 51, 60, 61 and 63. 

This ICR reflects revisions of the 

previous ICR of 2011, and it covers the 

period of 2014–2016. The number of 

audit sample reports is expected to 

remain stable for 2014–2016. 

A regulated emisson source 

conducting a compliance test would 

purchase an audit sample from an 

AASP. The AASP would report the true 

value of the audit sample to the 

compliance authority (state, local or 

EPA Regional Office). The AASP would, 

in most cases, make the report by 

electronic mail. A report would be made 

for each audit sample that the AASP 

sold to a regulated emission source that 

was conducting an emissions test to 

determine compliance with an emission 

limit. 

Although this ICR has been in place 

for three years, the audit program only 

started being required on June 16, 2013; 

therefore, the cost estimates are on 

historic data of the time that the EPA 

conducted the audit program. 

Burden Statement: The EPA estimates 

that there will be about 1,000 audit 

samples sold each year generating the 

need for about 1,000 reports which 

corresponds to 80 hours burden or 0.08 

hours per response for reporting and 

recordkeeping. The estimated cost 

burden is $5.05 per response or an 

annual burden of $5,050. The annual 

public reporting and recordkeeping 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 294 hours per 

respondent. Burden means the total 

time, effort, or financial resources 

expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain, 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 which have 

subsequently changed; 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. 

The ICR provides a detailed 

explanation of the agency’s estimate, 

which is only briefly summarized here: 

Estimated total number of potential 

respondents: 9. 

Frequency of response: There is no 

regular schedule for collecting 

information. The information is event 

driven and information is collected only 

when an AASP supplies an audit 

sample to a user. 

Estimated total annual burden hours: 

2,646 hours. 

Estimated total annual costs: 

$201,116. This includes the cost of 

preparing, validating, distributing and 

reporting the audit results. 

Are there changes in the estimates from 

the last approval? 

No. 

What is the next step in the process for 

this ICR? 

The EPA will consider the comments 

received and amend the ICR as 

appropriate. The final ICR package will 

then be submitted to the OMB for 

review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 

1320.12. At that time, the EPA will issue 

another Federal Register notice 

pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to 

announce the submission of the ICR to 

the OMB and the opportunity to submit 

additional comments to the OMB. If you 

have any questions about this ICR or the 

approval process, please contact the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Dated: August 13, 2013. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Air Quality Assessment 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20319 Filed 8–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0441, FRL–9900–16– 

Region 10 ] 

Air Pollution Control: Proposed 

Actions on Clean Air Act Section 105 

Grant to the Lane Regional Air 

Protection Agency; Proposed 

Determination With Request for 

Comments; and a Notice of 

Opportunity for a Public Hearing 

AGENCY: U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice; Proposed determination 

with request for comments; and notice 

of opportunity for public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The EPA has made a 

proposed determination that a reduction 

in recurring expenditures of nonFederal funds for the Lane Regional Air 

Protection Agency (LRAPA) in Eugene, 

Oregon is a result of agency wide nonselective reductions in expenditures. 

This determination, when final, will 

permit the LRAPA to continue to 

receive grant funding under Section 105 

of the Clean Air Act for the state fiscal 

year (SFY) 2014. This determination 

will also reset the LRAPA required 

maintenance of effort level for SFY 2012 

and 2013 to reflect the non-selective 

reductions made to address reductions 

in revenue due to adverse economic 

conditions in Lane County, Oregon. 

DATES: Comments and/or requests for a 

public hearing must be received by EPA 

at the address stated below by 

September 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0441, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov, Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Koprowski.Paul@epa.gov 

• Mail: Paul Koprowski, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, 805 SW. Broadway, Suite 

500, Portland, OR 97205. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Koprowski, Region10, Oregon 

Operations Office, 805 SW. Broadway, 

Portland, OR, 97205, phone: (503) 326– 

6363, fax: (503) 326–3399 or email: 

Koprowski.Paul@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides 

grant support for the continuing air 

programs of eligible state, local and 

tribal agencies. Section 105 contains 

two cost-sharing requirements agencies 

must meet to qualify for grants under 

CAA § 105(a)(1)(A). Eligible entities 

must meet a minimum match and a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Notices 51185 

maintenance of effort (MOE) 

requirement under CAA § 105(c)(1). The 

match requires that at least two-fifths 

(40%) of the total costs for approved 

Section 105 program activities must be 

paid by the state/local recipient. 

Program activities relevant to the match 

consist of both recurring and nonrecurring (unique, one-time only) 

expenses. The LRAPA is currently 

meeting the two-fifths (40%) match 

requirement. The MOE provision 

requires that a state or local agency 

spend at least the same dollar level of 

funds as it did in the previous grant year 

for recurring activities. Specifically, 

CAA § 105(c)(1) [42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(1)], 

provides that ‘‘no agency shall receive 

any grant under this section during any 

fiscal year when its expenditures of 

non-Federal funds for recurrent 

expenditures for air pollution control 

programs will be less than its 

expenditures were for such programs 

during the preceding fiscal year.’’ 

Pursuant to CAA § 105(c)(2), however, 

the EPA may award a grant to an agency 

not meeting the requirements of CAA 

§ 105(c)(1), ‘‘if the Administrator, after 

notice and opportunity for public 

hearing, determines that a reduction in 

expenditures is attributable to a nonselective reduction in the expenditures 

in the programs of all Executive branch 

agencies of the applicable unit of 

Government.’’ These statutory 

requirements are repeated in the EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

35.140 through 35.148. 

The EPA issued additional guidance 

to recipients on what constitutes a nonselective reduction on September 30, 

2011. In consideration of legislative 

history, the guidance clarified that a 

non-selective reduction does not 

necessarily mean that each executive 

branch agency or units of a singlepurpose local air district need be 

reduced in equal proportion. However, 

it must be clear to the EPA, from the 

weight of evidence, that a recipient’s 

CAA-related air program is not being 

disproportionately reduced or singled 

out for a reduction. 

No later than 90 days after the close 

of its grant period a CAA § 105 recipient 

must submit a Federal Financial Report 

(FFR) that documents all of its federal 

and non-federal expenditures for the 

completed period. A recipient seeking 

an adjustment to its MOE for that period 

must provide the rationale and the 

documentation necessary the EPA to 

make a determination that a nonselective reduction has occurred. To 

expedite that determination, the 

recipient must provide details of the 

budget action and the comparative fiscal 

impacts on all the jurisdiction’s 

executive branch agencies, the recipient 

agency itself, and the agency’s air 

program. The recipient should identify 

any executive branch agencies or 

programs that should not be included in 

the comparison and explain why. The 

recipient must provide evidence that the 

air program is not being singled out for 

a reduction or being disproportionately 

reduced. Documentation in two key 

areas is required: Budget data specific to 

the recipient’s air program and 

comparative budget data between the 

recipient’s air program, the agency 

containing the air program and the other 

executive branch agencies. The EPA 

may also request information from the 

recipient about how impacts on its 

program operations will affect its ability 

to meet its CAA obligations and 

requirements. 

The LRAPA is a single purpose local 

air agency authorized to implement 

most aspects of the federal Clean Air 

Act in Lane County, Oregon. The chief 

executive is the LRAPA Executive 

Director and the fiscal decision-making 

body is the 9-member LRAPA Board of 

Directors. 

The EPA provides annual grant 

funding under the authority of CAA 

Section 105 to help the LRAPA support 

the operation of its CAA-related 

continuing environmental program for 

air quality. The LRAPA’s annual grant 

period is based on the state fiscal year 

from July 1 through June 30. For the 

SFY 2012 grant year, the EPA allocated 

$275,609 in CAA Section 105 funds to 

the LRAPA. The LRAPA’s contribution 

to the total approved program funding 

for this period was $935,855. This 

represents a match of 78% for the 

period ending June 30, 2012. 

The LRAPA’s FFR for SFY 2011 

indicated that the LRAPA’s MOE level 

was $1,068,396. This was the LRAPA’s 

final level of recurrent expenditures for 

the SFY 2011 grant period and 

constituted the required MOE level for 

the SFY 2012 grant year. However, the 

LRAPA’s FFR dated November 8, 2012 

showed the actual SFY 2012 MOE was 

$935,855. On December 31, 2012 the 

LRAPA informed the EPA in writing 

that due to continued reductions in the 

state and local contributions to the 

LRAPA’s budget the LRAPA fell short of 

its required MOE level by $132,541 for 

the SFY 2012 grant year. The LRAPA 

also projected a shortfall of an 

additional $135,542 in SFY 2013. As a 

result, the LRAPA requests the EPA 

adjust the MOE level to $935,855 for 

SFY 2012 and to $800,313 for SFY 2013. 

In the letter submitted on December 

31, 2012 the LRAPA provided the 

rationale and essential documentation 

necessary to support approval of a nonselective reduction to the LRAPA’s MOE 

level. The documentation includes 

details of the actions LRAPA took to 

address the shortfall including 

comparative fiscal impacts. The 

shortfall stems from budget actions 

taken to reduce state and local general 

funds available to the LRAPA due to 

adverse economic conditions in Oregon. 

The Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) is 

responsible for passing on state general 

funds to the LRAPA for air quality 

management in Lane County. For the 

SFY 2011–2013 biennial budget the 

Oregon Legislature reduced the amount 

of general funds available to the ODEQ 

by about 24% overall. The general fund 

resources available to manage ODEQ air 

and water quality programs were cut by 

31% each while land quality program 

funds were cut by 44%. ODEQ then 

reduced the amount of general fund 

passed through to the LRAPA to manage 

air quality programs in Lane County by 

31%, from $364,929 to $252,385. To 

address the general fund reductions to 

executive branch agencies in Oregon, 

the Governor imposed across-the-board 

unpaid furlough leave for state 

employees, wage and spending freezes 

and other agency-specific budget cuts 

necessary to address the shortfall to 

each agency. 

Since 2008 Lane County and the cities 

(Eugene, Springfield, Cottage Grove and 

Oakridge) that contribute locally to the 

LRAPA’s budget have been subject to 

adverse economic conditions. These 

conditions are primarily due to the 

recession, reduced timber sales and 

property tax limitations. The Lane 

County general fund budget overall 

declined by 11% in SFY 2012 and 17% 

in SFY 2013 primarily due to a decrease 

in revenue from timber sales on federal 

land in Lane County. These overall 

reductions were applied to other 

executive branch agencies in Lane 

County and were passed on to the Lane 

Regional Air Protection Agency. The 

following table illustrates the overall 

impact of local budget reductions on the 

local contribution to the LRAPA budget 

between SFY 2011 and SFY 2013. 

Fiscal year Total local 

contribution 

Percent 

reduction 

SFY 2011 ..... $333,440 ......................

SFY 2012 ..... 159,360 52 

SFY 2013 ..... 121,670 23 

Examples of reductions to the budgets 

of other programs or departments in 

Lane County include: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51186 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Notices 

Department/program Fiscal year Percent reduction 

Justice Courts Program ........................................................................................................... SFY 12–13 53.7 

Animal Services Program ........................................................................................................ SFY 12–13 71.3 

Health and Human Services .................................................................................................... SFY 12–13 26.3 

Public Safety ............................................................................................................................ SFY 12–13 16.9 

To operate within the limits of the 

reduced budgets for SFY 2012 and SFY 

2013, the LRAPA reduced recurring 

expenditures by imposing unpaid 

furlough days, work schedule 

reductions, and other systematic acrossthe-board reductions in materials and 

services, as well as not filling positions 

vacated due to retirements or 

resignations. 

For the LRAPA to be eligible to 

receive its SFY 2014 CAA Section 105 

grant, the EPA must make a 

determination (after notice and an 

opportunity for a public hearing and 

comment) that the reduction in 

expenditures is attributable to a nonselective reduction in the budget of the 

Lane Regional Air Protection Agency. 

Accordingly, consistent with criteria set 

forth in CAA Section 105(c)(2) and 

consistent with the Agency’s September 

30, 2011 guidance on qualifying for a 

non-selective reduction, the EPA has 

determined that it is appropriate to 

approve the LRAPA’s request for a non 

selective reduction in its level of 

recurring expenditures for the SFY 2012 

and SFY 2013 grant budget period. The 

revised MOE level for SFY 2012 is 

$935,855 and the level for SFY2013 is 

$800,313. 

This notice constitutes a request for 

public comment and an opportunity for 

public hearing as required by the Clean 

Air Act. All written comments received 

by September 19, 2013 on this proposal 

will be considered. The EPA will 

conduct a public hearing on this 

proposal only if a written request for 

such is received by the EPA at the 

address above by September 19, 2013. If 

no written request for a hearing is 

received, the EPA will proceed to the 

final determination. While notice of the 

final determination will not be 

published in the Federal Register, 

copies of the determination can be 

obtained by sending a written request to 

Paul Koprowski at the above address. 

Dated: August 6, 2013. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20156 Filed 8–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL 9900–15–OGC] 

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air 

Act Citizen Suit 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent 

Decree; Request for Public Comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended 

(‘‘CAA’’), notice is hereby given of a 

proposed consent decree, to resolve a 

deadline suit filed by Air Alliance 

Houston, California Communities 

Against Toxics, Coalition For A Safe 

Environment, Community In-Power and 

Development Association, Del Amo 

Action Committee, Environmental 

Integrity Project, Louisiana Bucket 

Brigade, and Texas Environmental 

Justice Advocacy Services (collectively, 

‘‘Plaintiffs’’) in the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia: Air 

Alliance Houston, et al. v. McCarthy, 

No. 12–1607 (RMC) (D.D.C.). On 

September 27, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a 

complaint concerning EPA’s obligation 

to develop residual risk and technology 

standards for the petroleum refineries 

source category, which is subject to two 

different maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards. The 

consent decree would require EPA to 

propose action by February 14, 2014 

and take final action by December 19, 

2014. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed consent decree must be 

received by September 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OGC–2013–0580, online at 

www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred 

method); by email to oei.docket@

epa.gov; mailed to EPA Docket Center, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

or by hand delivery or courier to EPA 

Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. Comments on 

a disk or CD–ROM should be formatted 

in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use 

of special characters and any form of 

encryption, and may be mailed to the 

mailing address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan 

Tierney, Air and Radiation Law Office 

(2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564–5598; 

fax number (202) 564–5603; email 

address: tierney.jan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Consent Decree 

The proposed consent decree would 

resolve a lawsuit filed by the Plaintiffs 

seeking to compel the Administrator to 

take final action under section 112(d)(6), 

42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6), to ‘‘review, and 

revise as necessary’’ the national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (‘‘NESHAP’’) and to take final 

action addressing residual risk under 

CAA section 112(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. 

7412(f)(2), for petroleum refineries 

under 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CC and 

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUU, within 8 

years of the promulgation of such 

standards. The proposed consent decree 

provides that no later than February 14, 

2014, EPA shall (1) review and either 

sign a proposal to revise the emission 

standards in 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts 

CC and UUU under CAA section 

112(d)(6), 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6), or sign 

a proposed determination that revision 

of Subparts CC and UUU is not 

necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6) 

and (2) review and either sign a 

proposal to promulgate residual risk 

standards for the Petroleum Refineries 

source category subject to NESHAP 

Subparts CC and UUU under CAA 

section 112(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7412(f)(2), or 

sign a proposed determination that 

promulgation of such standards is not 

required under CAA section 112(f)(2). 

The proposed consent decree also 

provides that no later than December 19, 

2014, EPA shall, (1) sign a final rule 

promulgating revisions to the emission 

standards in NESHAP Subparts CC and 

UUU under CAA section 112(d)(6), or 

sign a final determination that revision 

of NESHAP Subparts CC and UUU is 

not necessary under CAA section 

112(d)(6) and (2) sign a final rule 

promulgating residual risk standards for 

the Petroleum Refineries source 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES