[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 192 (Friday, October 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62299-62301]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21255]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0540 FRL-10015-15-OLEM]

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) or Superfund, Section 128(a); Notice of Grant Funding
Guidance for State and Tribal Response Programs for Fiscal Year 2021

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, authorizes a noncompetitive $50
million grant program to establish or enhance state and tribal response
programs. These response programs generally address the assessment,
cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfields sites and other sites with
actual or perceived contamination. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will consider grant requests up
to a maximum of $1.0 million per state or tribe. This document
announces the availability of guidance that will assist states and
tribes in the development and submission of funding requests and these
funds.

DATES: The FY 2021 section 128(a) grant funding guidance is applicable
as of October 2, 2020, and EPA Regional offices will accept requests
for section 128(a) noncompetitive grant awards through December 11,
2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Papasavvas, Office of
Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number
(202) 566-0435.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be affected by this action if you administer a State or
Tribal response program that oversees assessment and cleanup activities
at brownfield sites across the country. Note: the CERCLA definition of
``State''

includes US Territories and the District of Columbia (CERCLA section
101(27)).

B. How can I get copies of the grant funding guidance and other related
information?

    1. Docket. The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0540, is available online
at https://www.regulations.gov.
    2. EPA website. To access the FY21 section 128(a) grant funding
guidance on EPA's website, please go to https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/types-brownfields-grant-funding.

II. Authority

    CERCLA Section 128(a) (42 U.S.C. 9628(a)) authorizes a
noncompetitive $50 million grant program to ``establish or enhance''
state and tribal response programs. CERCLA section
128(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) authorizes a noncompetitive $1.5 million grant
program to assist small communities, Indian tribes, rural areas, or
disadvantaged areas to carry out activities outlined in CERCLA section
104(k)(7) (42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(7)) (i.e., providing training, research,
and technical assistance to individuals and organizations, as
appropriate, to facilitate the inventory of brownfields sites, site
assessments, remediation of brownfield sites, community involvement, or
site preparation).

III. Background

    1. General. State and tribal response programs oversee assessment
and cleanup activities at brownfield sites across the country. The
depth and breadth of these programs vary. Some focus on CERCLA-related
activities, while others are multi-faceted, addressing sites regulated
by both CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). Many states also offer accompanying financial
incentive programs to spur cleanup and redevelopment. In enacting the
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act
(Pub. L. 107-118, 115 Stat. 2356), which added section 128 to CERCLA,
Congress recognized the value of state and tribal response programs in
cleaning up and redeveloping brownfield sites. Section 128(a)
strengthens EPA's partnerships with states and tribes and recognizes
their response programs' critical role in overseeing cleanups.
    Section 128(a) response program grants are funded with categorical
State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) appropriations. Categorical
grants are issued by Congress to fund state and local governments for
narrowly defined purposes. This funding is intended for those states
and tribes that have the required management and administrative
capacity within their government to administer a federal grant. The
primary goal of this funding is to ensure that state and tribal
response programs include, or are taking reasonable steps to include,
certain elements of an environmental response program and that the
program establishes and maintains a public record of sites addressed.
    Section 128(a) cooperative agreements are awarded and administered
by the EPA regional offices. Generally, these response programs address
the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfields sites and
other sites with actual or perceived contamination. Subject to the
availability of funds, EPA regional personnel will provide technical
assistance to states and tribes as they apply for and carry out section
128(a) cooperative agreements.
    2. Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) and EPA Funding
Opportunity Number (FON). The CFDA entry for the section 128(a) State
and Tribal Response Program cooperative agreements is 66.817. The FON
for FY 2021 section 128(a) funds is EPA-CEP-02. This grant program is
eligible to be included in state and tribal Performance Partnership
Grants under 40 CFR part 35 Subparts A and B, with the following
exceptions: Funds used to capitalize a revolving loan fund for
brownfield remediation under CERCLA section 104(k)(3); funds received
for a Small Technical Assistance Grant under CERLCA section
128(a)(I)(B)(ii)(III); and funds used to purchase environmental
insurance or developing a risk sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or
insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions under a
State or Tribal response program.
    3. Application period. Requests for funding should be sent to the
appropriate Regional EPA contact and will be accepted from October 2,
2020 through December 11, 2020. Requests EPA Regional offices receive
after December 11, 2020 will not be considered for FY 2021 funding.
States or tribes that do not submit the request in the appropriate
manner may forfeit their ability to receive funds. First time
requestors are strongly encouraged to contact their respective Regional
EPA Brownfields contacts, identified in Table 1, prior to submitting
their funding request. EPA will consider funding requests up to a
maximum of $1.0 million per state or tribe for FY 2021.
    Requests submitted by the December 11, 2020 request deadline are
preliminary; final cooperative agreement work plans and budgets will be
negotiated with the EPA regional offices once final funding allocation
determinations are made. As in previous years, EPA will place special
emphasis on reviewing a cooperative agreement recipient's use of prior
section 128(a) funding in making allocation decisions, and unexpended
balances are subject to 40 CFR 35.118 and 40 CFR 35.518 to the extent
consistent with this guidance. EPA will also prioritize funding for
recipients establishing their response programs.

                Table 1--EPA Regional Brownfields Contacts for State and Tribal Response Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Region                                      State                      Tribal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT...............................  AmyJean McKeown, 5 Post     AmyJean McKeown, 5 Post
                                                           Office Square, Suite 100    Office Square, Suite 100
                                                           (OSRR07-2) Boston, MA       (OSRR07-2) Boston, MA
                                                           02109-3912, Phone (617)     02109-3912, Phone (617)
                                                           918-1248 Fax (617)<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax (617) 918-
                                                           1294.                       1294.
2. NJ, NY, PR, VI.......................................  John Struble, 290           John Struble, 290
                                                           Broadway, 25th Floor, New   Broadway, 25th Floor, New
                                                           York, NY 10007-1866,        York, NY 10007-1866,
                                                           Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax    Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax
<PHONE_NUMBER>.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
3. DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV...............................  Mike Taurino, 1650 Arch     Mike Taurino, 1650 Arch
                                                           Street (3HS51),             Street (3HS51),
                                                           Philadelphia, PA 19103,     Philadelphia, PA 19103,
                                                           Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax    Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax
<PHONE_NUMBER>.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
4. AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN.......................  Cindy Nolan, 61 Forsyth     Cindy Nolan, 61 Forsyth
                                                           Street, S.W, 10TH FL        Street, S.W, 10TH FL
                                                           (9T25) Atlanta, GA 30303-   (9T25) Atlanta, GA 30303-
                                                           8960, Phone (404) 562-      8909, Phone (404) 562-
                                                           8425 Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.    8425 Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

5. IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI...............................  Keary Cragan, 77 West       Rosita Clarke, 77 West
                                                           Jackson Boulevard (SB-5J)   Jackson Boulevard (SB-5J)
                                                           Chicago, IL 60604-3507,     Chicago, IL 60604-3507,
                                                           Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax    Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax
<PHONE_NUMBER>.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
6. AR, LA, NM, OK, TX...................................  Ana Esquivel, 1201 Elm      Elizabeth Reyes, 1201 Elm
                                                           Street, Suite 500,          Street, Suite 500,
                                                           Dallas, Texas 75270-2102,   Dallas, Texas 75270-2102,
                                                           Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax    Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax
<PHONE_NUMBER>.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
7. IA, KS, MO, NE.......................................  Susan Klein, 11201 Renner   Jennifer Morris, 11201
                                                           Boulevard (LCRD/            Renner Boulevard ((LCRD/
                                                           BSPR)Lenexa KS 66219,       BSPR) Lenexa KS 66219,
                                                           Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.       Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
8. CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY...............................  Christina Wilson, 1595      Melisa Devincenzi, 1595
                                                           Wynkoop Street (8LCR-BR)    Wynkoop Street (8LCR-BR)
                                                           Denver, CO 80202-1129,      Denver, CO 80202-1129,
                                                           Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax    Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax
<PHONE_NUMBER>.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
9. AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP...........................  Jose Garcia, Jr., 600       Jose Garcia, Jr., 600
                                                           Wilshire Blvd, Suite        Wilshire Blvd, Suite
                                                           1460, Los Angeles, CA       1460, Los Angeles, CA
                                                           90017, Phone (213) 244-     90017, Phone (213) 244-
                                                           1811 Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.    1811 Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
10. AK, ID, OR, WA......................................  Madison Sanders-Curry,      Madison Sanders-Curry,
                                                           1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 155   1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 155
                                                           (mail code 15-H04),         (mail code 15-H04),
                                                           Seattle, WA 98101, Phone    Seattle, WA 98101, Phone
<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax 206 553-<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax (206)
                                                           8581.                       553-8581.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9628(a).

    Dated: September 22, 2020.
David Lloyd,
Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization.
[FR Doc. 2020-21255 Filed 10-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 72471-72472]
[DOCID:fr28no08-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP04-47-001; CP05-396-001]

Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Sabine Pass LNG Export
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

November 21, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
address the environmental impacts of the Sabine Pass LNG Export Project
(Sabine Export Project or Project) proposed by Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.
(Sabine Pass). The Commission will use the EA in its decision-making
process to determine whether or not to authorize the project. This
notice explains the scoping process we \1\ will use to gather
environmental input from the public and interested agencies on the
projects. Your input will help the Commission determine the issues that
need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period
will close on December 19, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ `We,' `us,' and `our' refer to the environmental staff of
the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Details on how to submit written comments are provided in the
Public Participation section of this notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a Sabine Pass representative about the proposed project facilities.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties; and local libraries and newspapers. We encourage government
representatives to notify their constituents of this planned project
and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

Summary of the Proposed Projects

    The purpose of the project is to add Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
export capabilities/functionality to the previously authorized Sabine
Pass LNG Terminal Facilities located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana.
Sabine Pass is seeking authorization to operate its facility for the
purpose of exporting LNG. Sabine proposes to operate its existing
Sabine Pass LNG Terminal facility to export LNG on a short term basis
by holding cargos of imported LNG in its LNG tanks for re-export. To
accomplish this, Sabine Pass would modify up to four 24-inch check
valves on unloading arms A & D on the West and East Jetty Platforms in
the marine portion of the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal. The general
location of the proposed project is shown in the figure included as
Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
Public Participation section of this notice. Copies of the
appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail.
Requests for detailed maps of the proposed facilities should be made
directly to Sabine Pass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed modification of the check valves would allow the LNG
to be transferred from the LNG storage tanks to a receiving ship. The
existing in-situ in-tank pumps would be used to pump/push LNG from the
tanks through the LNG transfer lines to the unloading/loading arms and
then into the ship for export and transportation. Since the Sabine Pass
LNG Terminal already includes all required plant components to
facilitate the proposed activity other than the valve modifications, no
land disturbance would be required. The valves are located on the
accessible portion of the Jetty Platforms.

Total Land Requirements

    Based on the preliminary information, construction of Sabine Pass
Export Project facilities would not involve new land disturbance;
therefore, there would be no land requirements.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action. The FERC will use the EA to consider the
environmental impact that could result if the project is authorized
under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us to
discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals to be
considered by the Commission. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. With this
Notice of Intent, the Commission staff is requesting public comments on
the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during preparation of the EA.
    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, ballast water, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Threatened and endangered species;
     Air quality and noise;
     Hazardous waste; and
     Public safety.
    In the EA, we will also evaluate possible alternatives to the
proposed project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid
impacts on affected resources.
    The FERC staff has initiated its NEPA review and FERC encourages
the early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify
issues/concerns.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the proposed project. By becoming a
commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by
the Commission. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives and measures to avoid or
lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more
useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please carefully follow these instructions:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of your comments for the attention of OEP/
DG2E, Gas Branch 2, PJ11.2.
     Reference Docket Nos. CP04-47-001 and CP05-396-001 on the
original and both copies.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before December 22, 2008.
    Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding.
See 18 Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the link to ``Documents and Filings'' and
``eFiling.'' eFiling is a file attachment process and requires that you
prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on
paper, and save it to a file on your hard drive. New eFiling

users must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. This filing is considered a ``Comment on Filing.'' In addition,
there is a ``Quick Comment'' option available, which is an easy method
for interested persons to submit text only comments on a project. The
Quick-Comment User Guide can be viewed at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/efiling/quick-comment-guide.pdf. Quick Comment does not require
a FERC eRegistration account; however, you will be asked to provide a
valid email address. All comments submitted under either eFiling or the
Quick Comment option are placed in the public record for the specified
docket or project number(s).
    We might mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in
receiving it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 2). If
you do not return the Information Request, you will be taken off the
mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary
link.'' Click on the eLibrary link, select ``General Search'' and enter
the project docket number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP04-
47) in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet
website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
``eSubscription'' that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-28292 Filed 11-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 11/15/2007 10:53 AM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Johansson, Robert" <EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Ozone NAAQS briefing materials for noon meeting today

Thank you Lydia.

Please do continue to share materials with both of us - Rob continues to

leading the RIA conversation and to be engaged as workload permits.

I will work with Margaret to set up time for comments on secondary

standard -

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:43 AM

To: King, Heidi R.; Johansson, Robert

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Ozone NAAQS briefing materials for noon meeting today

Heidi and Rob (should I still be sending things to Rob or only to

Heidi?),

Attached are materials for our noon meeting today.  I would hope to get

through the primary ozone NAAQS comments today and schedule another time

to discuss comments on the secondary NAAQS.  Thanks.

----- Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 11/15/2007 10:40 AM

-----

             Erika

             Sasser/RTP/USEPA

             /US                                                     To

                                      Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

             11/15/2007 10:27         Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US

             AM                                                      cc

                                                                Subject

                                      Version of NAAQS comment briefing

                                      with corrections to state pages

Just a couple of minor typos in state abbreviations-- these charts are

correct

(See attached file: O3 primary standard - public comments Nov9.ppt)(See

attached file: O3 secondary standard - public comments Nov9.ppt)


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57191-57195]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22509]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70369; File No. SR-BOX-2013-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule To Make Permanent the Pilot Program of Liquidity
Fees and Credits for Certain Transactions in the BOX Price Improvement
Period

September 11, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on August 30, 2013, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
amend the Fee Schedule [sic] to make permanent the pilot program of
Liquidity Fees and Credits for certain transactions in the BOX Price
Improvement Period (``PIP'') on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') options
facility. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the

proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the BOX Fee
Schedule to make permanent the pilot program of Liquidity Fees and
Credits for certain transactions in the BOX PIP or (the ``Program'').
The Program was approved on a pilot basis in February 2012 and is
scheduled to expire on August 31, 2013.\5\ The Exchange believes the
data collected on PIP transactions over the past two years demonstrates
that the Program does not place an undue burden on competition and
proposes to make the applicable fees and credits free from any pilot
restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 66278 (January 30,
2012), 77 FR 5590 (February 3, 2012) Commission Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of the BOX Credits and Fees for PIP
Transactions on a pilot basis (SR-BX-2011-046), 66979 (May 14,
2012), 77 FR 29740 (May 18, 2012) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness to adopt the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX which
included the Program) (SR-BOX-2012-002), and 69054 (March 7, 2013),
78 FR 16025(March 13, 2013) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule for
Trading on BOX) (SR-BOX-2013-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Program, transactions in the BOX PIP are assessed either
a fee for adding liquidity or provided a credit for removing liquidity
regardless of account type. PIP Orders (i.e., the agency orders
opposite the Primary Improvement Order \6\) receive the ``removal''
credit and Improvement Orders \7\ are charged the ``add'' fee. In
particular, the Program permits a fee for adding liquidity or a credit
for removing liquidity of $0.75, regardless of account type, for PIP
transactions where the minimum price variation is greater than $0.01
(i.e., all non-Penny Pilot Classes, and Penny Pilot Classes where the
trade price is equal to or greater than $3.00, excluding QQQ, SPY, and
IWM).\8\ The liquidity fees and credits are in addition to any
applicable Exchange Fees as described in Section I of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A Primary Improvement Order is the matching contra order
submitted to the PIP on the opposite side of an agency order.
    \7\ An Improvement Order is a response to a PIP auction. An
Unrelated Order that is not immediately marketable will be charged
as an Improvement Order when it executes against a PIP Order.
    \8\ The Exchange notes that the Program also includes a fee for
adding liquidity or a credit for removing liquidity of $0.30,
regardless of account type, for PIP transactions where the minimum
price variation is $0.01 (Penny Pilot classes where trade price is
less than $3.00, and all series in QQQ, SPY & IWM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the pilot period the Exchange has submitted to the
Commission, and made publicly available on the Exchange Web site,
monthly reports containing statistics on percent and amount of price
improvement, the number of responders to a PIP auction, and the
retention rates of Initiating Participants and those market makers who
received PIP directed orders. Specifically, each report contains the
following PIP transaction data in series traded in penny increments
compared to series traded in nickel increments, subdivided by when BOX
is at the NBBO and when BOX is not at the NBBO, including: (1) Volume
by number of contracts traded; (2) number of contracts executed by the
Initiating Participant as compared to others (``retention rate''); (3)
percentage of contracts receiving price improvement when the Initiating
Participant is the contra party and when others are the contra party;
(4) average number of responders in the PIP; (5) average price
improvement amount when the Initiating Participant is the contra party;
(6) average price improvement amount when others are the contra party;
and (7) percentage of contracts receiving price improvement greater
than $0.01, $0.02 and $0.03 when the Initiating Participant is the
contra party and when others are the contra party.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In June 2013 the Exchange posted revised reports for
November 2011 through April 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX provided these reports so the Commission could assess the
impact of the Program on the competitiveness of the PIP and the extent
of price improvement obtained for customers. Exhibit 3 to the Form 19b-
4 contains PIP transaction data sets from June 2011 through July
2013.\10\ The Exchange has evaluated these reports to determine the
impact of the Program on competition and price improvement, and
believes the data confirms that the Program has not placed an undue
burden on competition or lessened the amount of price improvement in
the aggregate for customers in the PIP.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange believes the data gathered over this time
period adequately represents the impact of the Program. While fees
and credits applicable under the Program first went into effect on
August 1, 2011, the Program was suspended by the Commission on
September 13, 2011. The Exchange then filed a notice of intention to
petition for review on September 20, 2011, which triggered an
automatic stay of the suspension and the previous fee schedule was
reinstated. On October 19, 2011, the Commission denied the
Exchange's petition and the applicable fees and credits were once
again suspended. The Commission approved the proposed fee change on
a pilot basis on January 30, 2012 and the Program has been in effect
on the Exchange since February 1, 2012. See Securities Exchange
Commission Release Nos. 65330 (September 13, 2011), 76 FR 58065,
58066 (September 19, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-046) (Suspension of and Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the BOX Fee Schedule With
Respect to Credits and Fees for Transactions in the BOX Price
Improvement Period); and 66278 (January 30, 2012), 77 FR 5590
(February 3, 2012) (SR-BX-2011-46) (``Approval Order'').
    \11\ The Commission released a memorandum with graphical
representations of the BOX PIP data, which match the reports
provided by the Exchange and referenced in this filing. See
Memorandum on File No. SR-BOX-2013-09 from August, 16, 2013; https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/box/2012/box-2013-09-2012-002-pipmemo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the Exchange believes that in the aggregate, the long term
data trends demonstrate there has not been a decline in market quality.
BOX's PIP auction continues to provide significant opportunities for
price improvement and the data provided by BOX does not suggest any
significant adverse impact of the Program on the competitiveness of the
PIP auction or the extent of price improvement for orders executed in
the PIP. Instead, the Exchange believes the Program has been successful
at encouraging Participants to submit their customer orders to the PIP
and allowing those orders the opportunity to benefit from its potential
price improvement.
    Before discussing the general trends below, the Exchange
acknowledges that certain data points have seen significant fluctuation
during the course of the Program. These variations are a result of
conditions which the Exchange has no control over, such as Participant
behavior changes, competitor pricing changes and overall market
volatility. For example, market volatility creates wider spreads and
can lead to significant growth in price improvement. Similarly, a
change in Participant behavior can also have a considerable impact on
specific data points in these reports.
    Since the Program went into effect in February 2012, \12\ the
Exchange has focused its analysis on the average data from two three-
month periods; one before the Program began (November 2011 through
January 2012) and one that reflects the most recent impact of the
Program (May 2013 through July 2013). The Exchange believes that using
these two periods offers the best comparison of the PIP data because
the first period reveals PIP data trends from when the Program was not
yet in place, compared directly with the most recent PIP data trends.
Additionally, averaging the data over a three-month period

helps to negate any of the significant fluctuations discussed in the
preceding paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra, note 10 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A key indicator of competition is the average number of responders
to the PIP auction. One of the central concerns expressed by commenters
at the outset of the Program was that the increased fees and credits
would burden competition by effectively barring certain participants
from competing with initiators.\13\ Instead of declining, as predicted
in the comment letters, the average number of responders has risen
throughout the length of the Program. From November 2011 through
January 2012 the average number of responders for PIP transactions when
BOX was at the NBBO was 1.63 for penny classes and 2.41 for non-penny
classes, and when BOX was not at the NBBO the average number of
responders was 1.53 for penny classes and 2.21 for non-penny classes.
From May 2013 through July 2013, the same data points rose to 3.14 and
4.05 when BOX was at the NBBO and 2.24 and 2.86 when BOX was not at the
NBBO. This growth is also clear in the graphical representations
created by the Commission based on the BOX PIP data.\14\ The Exchange
believes this growth proves that the fees and credits assessed under
the Program are not prohibitively high and therefore do not prevent
responders from competing in the auction with the firm that submitted
the original PIP order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Letters to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from John C. Nagel, Managing Director and General Counsel, Citadel
Securities LLC, dated August 12, 2011 (``Citadel Letter''); Andrew
Stevens, Legal Counsel, IMC Financial Markets dated August 15, 2011
(``IMC Letter''); Michael J. Simon, Secretary, ISE, dated August 22,
2011 (``ISE Letter), and Christopher Nagy, Managing Director Order
Strategy, TD Ameritrade Inc., dated September 12, 2011 (``TD
Ameritrade Letter'').
    \14\ See supra, note 10 at page 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the number of PIP transactions in non-penny classes, the
class affected by the Program, has continued to grow. From November
2011 through January 2012, the monthly volume averaged approximately
650,000 contracts when BOX was at the NBBO and 550,000 when BOX was not
at the NBBO. From May 2013 through July 2013, the same data points
averaged 850,000 contracts when BOX was at the NBBO and 900,000
contracts when BOX was not at the NBBO.
    The reports also showed growth in the average percentage of orders
receiving price improvement when BOX was at the NBBO when compared to
the total monthly trade volume on BOX.\15\ In fact, in the last three
months of the Program (May 2013 through July 2013) more than 75% of all
orders on non-penny series have received at least some improvement.
From November 2011 through January 2012, this number never rose above
56% and averaged 53%. Clearly the Program did not make it more
challenging for market participants to offer price improvement in the
PIP auctions, as some critics argued in their comment letters.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ BOX trade volume can be found on the BOX Web site: http://boxexchange.com/box-trade-volumes/.
    \16\ See supra, note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, while the overall average price improvement, when
improved, in non-penny classes fell slightly throughout the Program,
most of this decline came from orders that were improved by the
Initiator. From November 2011 through January 2012, the average price
improvement of non-penny PIP transactions was $0.037 for those orders
receiving improvement. In comparable data from May 2013 through July
2013, the average price improvement for those orders receiving
improvement fell to $0.029. However, this same data indicator increased
for orders improved by Directed Non-Affiliate responders, both when BOX
was at the NBBO and not at the NBBO. This number also rose for
``Other'' responders when BOX was not at the NBBO. The Exchange
believes this data demonstrates that the Program did not have an
adverse impact on the extent of price improvement by making it
``economically prohibitive for anyone other than the initiator to
respond'' to the PIP Auction.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Citadel Letter, supra note 13 at page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another key indicator of competition, the average retention rate,
measures the retention of the PIP order by the PIP initiator. While
this data point has increased over the life of the Program, the average
retention rate in non-penny classes was 38% from November 2011 through
January 2012, and 51% from May 2013 through July 2013; the growth has
centered in non-penny transactions where BOX was at the NBBO and
retention rates where BOX was not at the NBBO have remained relatively
inline. The Exchange believes this uptick was a result of the reduced
penny transaction volume in the PIP, where lower volume signals fewer
participants in the PIP process, and does not indicate that the Program
gives Initiators a competitive edge to retain a greater percentage of
their orders.
    For the reasons cited above, the Exchange believes the data
confirms that competition did not decrease as a result of the
additional fees and credits placed on non-penny PIP transactions. In
fact, the reports show that in the aggregate, competition has remained
inline and even grown throughout the length of the Program and there
has been no adverse impact on price improvement.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\19\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
BOX Options Participants and other persons using its facilities. The
Exchange also believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ which, among other things, requires that rules
of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, to
protect investors and the public interest, and to not permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, and
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\21\ which requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange not impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In
particular, the proposed change will result in permanent fees and
credits for PIP transactions, which will in turn give BOX Participants
greater certainty with regard to the potential fees and credits they
will be assessed when participating in the PIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in previous filings \22\, the Exchange believes that it
is reasonable and equitable to provide the proposed credit to any
Participant that removes liquidity from the BOX PIP. The Exchange
further believes these credits will continue to attract order flow to
BOX, resulting in greater liquidity to the benefit of all market
participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for adding
liquidity and credits for removing liquidity are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because such fees and credits apply uniformly
to all categories of Participants, across all account types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra, note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes the proposed fees for PIP
transactions to be reasonable. BOX operates within a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
any of several other

competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The BOX credits and fees for PIP transactions are intended
to attract order flow to BOX by offering incentives to all market
participants to submit their orders to the PIP for potential price
improvement. BOX notes that the fees collected will not necessarily
result in additional revenue to BOX, but will simply allow BOX to
provide the credit incentive to Participants to attract additional
order flow to the PIP. BOX believes it is appropriate to provide
incentives to market participants to use PIP, resulting in benefit to
customers through potential price improvement, and to all market
participants from greater liquidity on BOX.
    In particular, the proposed change will allow the Exchange to
continue the Program free of any pilot conditions which the Exchange
believes are no longer necessary. The Program was put in place to
determine the full impact of the liquidity fees and credits on
competitiveness and price improvement in the PIP. The applicable fees
and credits have been in place for eighteen months,\23\ and there is no
evidence to suggest that the Program has had any of the negative
effects on the PIP that were predicted in the comment letters.\24\ As
such, removal of the pilot restrictions is the logical next step.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra, note 5
    \24\ See supra, note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, the Exchange believes the data provided over the
length of the Program demonstrates that there has been no adverse
impact on the competitiveness of the PIP auction or the extent of price
improvement in series that trade in non-penny increments. As such, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    While some have argued that the Program creates a disparity between
the fees an Initiating Participant pays and the fees a competitive
responder pays in the PIP that may make the Program discriminatory and
an undue burden on competition, the Exchange believes the Program
provides incentives for market participants to submit customer order
flow to BOX and thus, creates a greater opportunity for retail
customers to receive additional price improvement. The PIP provides the
opportunity for market participants to compete for customer orders, and
has no limitations regarding the number of Market Makers, Options
Participants that are not Market Makers, and customers that can
participate and compete for orders in the PIP. BOX asserts that
Participants are actively competing for customer orders, which is
clearly supported by the simple fact that price improvement has
continued to occur in the PIP through the length of the Program.
    BOX notes that its market model and fees are generally intended to
benefit retail customers by providing incentives for Participants to
submit their customer order flow to BOX, and to the PIP in particular.
BOX makes a substantial amount of PIP-related data and statistics
available to the public on its Web site www.boxexchange.com.
Specifically, daily PIP volumes and average price improvement are
available at: http://boxexchange.com/box-trade-volumes/; and BOX
execution quality reports at: http://boxexchange.com/execution-quality-report/. The data indisputably supports that the PIP provides price
improvement for customer orders.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes the Program is more transparent
than payment for order flow (``PFOF'') arrangements and notes its
belief that the credit to remove liquidity on BOX is generally less
than what firms receive through PFOF.
    For the reasons stated above, the Exchange does not believe that
the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition either
among BOX Participants, or among the various options exchanges, which
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \25\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\26\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2013-44 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-44. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-44 and should be
submitted on or before October 8, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22509 Filed 9-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a 6 year consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks many different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes as I was a smoker of traditional cigarettes for 35 years and made the switch to electronic cigarettes near the end of 2007. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Thank you Greg Colbert


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Ea and Eb) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Ea and Eb) (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1506.12, OMB Control Number 2060-0210

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for subpart Ea and subpart Eb were proposed on December 20, 1980 and September 20, 1994 (respectively), and promulgated on February 11, 1991 and December 19, 1995 (respectively).  Municipal waste combustor (MWC) facilities that commenced construction after December 20, 1989 and on or before September 20, 1994, or commenced modification or reconstruction after December 20, 1989 and on or before June 19, 1996, are subject to the regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ea.  MWC facilities which commenced construction after September 20, 1994, or commenced modification or reconstruction after June 19, 1996, are subject to the regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb.  This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners or operators of the affected facilities.  They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any start-up, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.  These notifications and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to the NSPS.

Owners or operators subject to the provisions of subpart Ea will maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.  Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of subpart Eb will maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.  In addition, annual compliance reports are required for respondents (i.e., sources), along with semiannual reports of excess emissions, and quarterly reports for both subparts Ea and Eb.

Based on our consultations with industry representatives, there is an average of twelve sources that are subject to subparts Ea and Eb.  There are seven sources that are subject to Ea, and it is estimated that no additional sources will become subject to the regulation in the next three years, since the latest applicability date was June 19, 1996.  It is further assumed that there are two affected facilities per plant per respondent (i.e., the owner or operator of the plant site).  The remaining five sources are subject to subpart Eb, and it is estimated that one additional source per year will become subject to the standard over the next three years.  It is further assumed that there is an average of two affected facilities per plant.

In the United States, there are approximately 12 municipal waste combustor plants that are all publicly owned and operated by the municipal waste combustor industry.  None of these facilities are owned by either state, local, tribal, or the Federal governments.  They are all owned and operated solely by privately owned for-profit businesses.  You can find the burden to the “Affected Public” listed below in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost - NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Ea and Eb).  The Federal government burden does not include work performed by Federal employees only work performed by contractors, which could be found listed below in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden - NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Ea and Eb).

In the development of the Information Collection Request (ICR), we addressed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) “Terms of Clearance (TOC)” on the active ICR.  The TOC are as follows:

When this ICR is renewed, EPA should review the respondent burden, universe, labor rates, and capital costs and ensure these estimates have been updated.

EPA has addressed each item of concern in the TOC.  The respondent burden, universe, labor rates, and capital cost, have been thoroughly checked and all estimates updated.

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.  Section 111(a)(l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology (BDT).  Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); (E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, organic, acid gas, and nitrogen oxide emissions from MWCs cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure compliance with the applicable regulations.  The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.  Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the standard at all times.  During the performance tests, a record of the operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission monitor.

The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the standard is being met.  The performance test may also be observed.

The required semiannual and quarterly reports are used to determine periods of excess emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify operation/maintenance procedures, and for compliance determinations.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb.

3(a)  Nonduplication

If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If a state or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

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

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register (76 FR 26900) on May 9, 2011.  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

The Agency’s industry experts have been consulted, and the Agency’s internal data sources and projections of industry growth over the next three years have been considered.  The primary source of information as reported by industry is the Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) which is operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  OTIS is the EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of all compliance data.  The growth rate for the industry is based, in part, with our consultations with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).

Industry trade associations and other interested parties were provided an opportunity to comment on the burden associated with the standard as it was being developed.  In developing the ICR, we contacted the Integrated Waste Service Association at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

It is our policy to respond after a thorough review of comments received since the last ICR renewal, as well as to those submitted in response to the First Federal Register Notice.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.  Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting violations would be less likely.

3(e)  General Guidelines

These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the regulations promulgated by OMB under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B - Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are municipal waste combustors.  The United States Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes which correspond to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes could be found in the following table:

Standard (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Ea and Eb)

SIC Codes

NAICS Codes

Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management

9511

924110

Refuse Systems (hazardous waste treatment and disposal)

4953

562211

Refuse Systems (material recovery facilities)

4953

562920

Refuse Systems (other hazardous waste treatment and disposal)

4953

562219

Refuse Systems (solid waste combustors and incinerators)

4953

562213

Refuse Systems (solid waste landfills)

4953

562212

4(b)  Information Requested

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data recorded or reported is required by the New Source Performance Standards for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Ea and Eb).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification

Notification of construction/reconstruction or modification	60.7(a)(1), 60.59a(a), 60.59b(a-c)

Notification of preconstruction plans and public meeting material 60.59b(a)

Notification of actual startup	60.7(a)(3), 60.59a(a), 60.9b(c)

Notification related to siting analysis	60.59b(a)

Notification of initial performance tests	60.8(d)

Notification of initial performance tests results	60.8(a)

Notification of demonstration of continuous monitoring system	60.7(a)(5)

Notification of physical or operational change	60.7(a)(4)

Notification related to opacity	60.7(a)(6), 60.59b(c)

Reports

Report on initial performance test results	60.8(a), 60.59a(c), 60.59b(f)

Report on public meeting (notification and transcript)	60.59b(a)(2-3),

Report on responses to public comment	60.59b(a)(4)

Report on preliminary and final draft materials separation plans 60.59b(a)(1)

Report on weights of municipal solid waste and other fuels fired 60.59a(b)(3)

Report on performance tests/compliance report	60.8(a), 60.59a(e), 60.59a(g), 60.59b(g)

Report excess emissions	60.59a(f), 60.59b(h)

Report on continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) demonstration and test data	60.8(a), 60.59b(f)

Report of emission levels during annual test (if necessary)	60.59b(d)

Semiannual report and explanation for excess emissions (if necessary) 60.59b(d)

Semiannual carbon report for mercury control (if necessary)	60.59b(d)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Initial performance tests and annual performance tests

60.59b(d)

Records of periodic testing for fugitive ash emissions	60.59b(d)

Startup, shutdown, malfunction periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative	60.7(b)

Occurrence, duration of interruption in operation	60.7(b)

Records of sources with continuous monitoring systems	60.59a(i)

Results of daily CEMs drift tests and Appendix F accuracy assessment 60.59b(d)

Amounts of sorbent used for mercury (Hg) control	60.59b(d)

Persons reviewing operating material	60.59a(j), 60.59b(d)

Records are required to be retained for two years (subpart Ea)	60.59a(b)

Records are required to be retained for five years (subpart Eb) 60.59b(d-e)

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for opacity.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Methods 19 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining 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.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

Perform site selection analysis.

Hold public meeting on site analysis and material separation plan.

	Electronic Reporting

Some of the respondents use monitoring equipment that automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the affected facility must still evaluate the data, internal automation has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping at a plant site.

Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents continue to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used.  At this time, it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

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

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Online Tracking Information System (OTIS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operational.  Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.  The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into OTIS which is operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  OTIS is an EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned facilities.  EPA uses OTIS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for two years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

The majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small businesses,) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities.  The Agency considers these to be the minimum requirements needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown below in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Ea and Eb) (Renewal).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Wherever appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The 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.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 20,421 (Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$118.92   ($56.63 + 110%)

Technical	$97.78   ($46.56 + 110%)

Clerical	$48.76   ($23.22 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2010, “Table 10. Private industry, by Occupational and Industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, “Total Compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The only costs to the regulated industry resulting from information collection activities required by the subject standard are labor costs.  The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activities in the subject standard are both labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

		(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents 	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost,

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

CEMs for subpart Ea	$60,000	0	$0	$8,972	7	$62,804

CEMs for subpart Eb	$60,000	1	$60,000	$8.972	4	$35,888

Total

	$60,000

	$98,692

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $60,000.  This is the total of column D in the above table.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs which consist of photocopying and postage are $98,692.  This is the total of column G.

The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $158,692.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information.  EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents; periodic inspection of sources of emissions; and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $36,556.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

	Managerial	$62.27 (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 + 60%)

	Technical	$46.21 (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 + 60%)

	Clerical	$25.01 (GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2011 General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates have been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages available to government employees.  Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Ea and Eb) (Renewal).

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

Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 198 respondents are currently subject to the standard.  It is estimated that an additional one source per year under subpart Eb will become subject to the standard in the next three years.  The average number of respondents per year is, therefore: 1) subpart Ea - 7 existing, and zero new; and 2) subpart Eb - 4 existing, and one new.  The average number of existing respondents per year is 11, with one new for a total of 12 sources.  This is illustrated below.

The number of respondents is calculated using the following table that addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents 1	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1-Ea	0	7	0	0	7

2-Ea	0	7	0	0	7

3-Ea	0	7	0	0	7

1-Eb 2	1	4	0	1	4

2-Eb	1	5	0	1	5

3-Eb	1	6	0	1	6

Average	1	12	0	1	12

1 The new respondent includes sources with constructed, reconstructed, and modified affected facilities.

2 The average number of existing respondents for subpart Eb is four.

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of this ICR is 12.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number

of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of construction/reconstruction for Ea	0	0	N/A	0

Notification of actual startup for Ea	0	0	N/A	0

Notification of initial performance test for Ea	0	0	N/A	0

Notification of CMS demonstration for Ea	0	0	N/A	0

Notification of construction/reconstruction for Eb	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of initial performance test for Eb	1	1	N/A	1

Compliance reports for Ea	7	1	N/A	7

Opacity reports for Ea (no excess emission)	5.6	1	N/A	5.6

Opacity reports for Ea (excess emission)	1.4	1	N/A	1.4

Report of daily weight of municipal solid waste (MSW) and fuel for Ea	7 4	N/A	28

Appendix F reports for Ea	7	4	N/A	28

Initial compliance reports for Eb	1	1	N/A	1

Annual compliance reports for Eb	4	1	N/A	4

Semiannual excess emission reports Eb	4	2	N/A	8

Appendix F quarterly reports for Eb	4	4	N/A	16

Initial report on site selection analysis for Eb	1	1	N/A	1

Public meetings and comment responses for Eb	1	1	N/A	1

	Total	103

The number of Total Annual Responses is 103.

The total annual labor costs are $1,757,811.  Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost - NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Ea and Eb) (Renewal).

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, and summarized below.

(i)  Respondent Tally

The total annual labor costs are $1,757,811.  Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Ea and Eb) (Renewal).

Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 198 hours per response.

The total annual capital/startup and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs to the regulated entity are $159,000 (rounded).

(ii)  The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 785 labor hours at a cost of $36,556.  See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost: NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Ea and Eb) (Renewal).

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR.  This is due to two considerations: 1) the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and 2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative, or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden.  There is, however, an increase in the estimated burden cost as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of approved Burdens.  The increase is not due to any program changes.  The change in burden cost is due to the use of the most updated labor rates.

Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR, and there is no change in burden to industry.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 198 hours per response.  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 valid OMB Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

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 ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0210.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"  http://www.regulations.gov/  which may be used to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the content of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search” than key in the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents are also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  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 Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0210 and OMB Control Number 2060-0210 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb)

Burden item	(A)

Technical Person- Hour Per Occurrence

	(B)

Number of

Occurrences

Per

Respondent

Per Year

	(C)

Technical

Person-

Hour Per

Respondent

Per Year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Number of

Respondents

Per Year a

	(E)

Technical

Person-

Hour

Per Year

(E=CxD)b

	(F)

Management

Person-

Hour

Per Year

(E x 0.05)b

	(G)

Clerical

Person-

Hour

Per Year

(E x 0.1)b

	(H)

Total

Labor Costs

Per Year b

	(I)

Emission

Testing

Contractor

Hours Per

Occurrence

	(J)

Emission

Testing

Contractor

Hour Per

Respondent

Per Year

(J= IxB)	(K)

Contractor

Person-

Hour

Per Year

(K= JxD)

	(L)

Total

Contractor

Cost

Per Year

(L=Kx$80) c

1. Applications	N/A

2. Survey and Studies	N/A

3. Reporting requirements

  A.  Read instructions	1	1	1	2	2	0.1	0.2	$217.20	1	1	2	$160.00

  B.  Required activities

      Initial performance test

      for Eb d, e	24	1	24	1	24	1.2	2.4	$2,576.44	1,053	1,053	1,053 $84,240.00

      Repeat performance

      test for Eb f, e                                                                      	24	1	24	0.2	4.8	0.24	0.48	$521.76	1,053	1,053	210.6 $16,848.00

      Demonstration/CEMS for Eb	24	1	24	1	24	1.2	2.4	$2,606.44	470	470 470	$37,600.00

      Repeat CEM

      demonstration Eb g	24	1	24	0.2	4.8	0.24	0.48	$521.76	470	470	94 $7,520.00

      Annual compliance test

      for Ea h, i	24	1	24	7	168	8.4	16.8	$18,245.14	826	826	5,782 $462,560.00

      Annual compliance test

      for Eb j, e	24	1	24	4	96	4.8	9.6	$10,425.80	1,053	1,053	4,212 $336,960.00

      Appendix F audit for Ea

      (in-situ)	125	8	1,000	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

      Appendix F audit for Ea

      (extractive)	36	8	288	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

  C.  Create Information	See 3B

	  D.  Gather information 	See 3B

	  E.  Write report

      Notification of  construction/

      reconstruction for Ea       	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

      Notification of actual

      startup – Ea	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

      Notification of initial

      performance test - Ea 	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

      Notification of CMS

      demonstration for Ea                                               2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

      Notification of construction/

      reconstruction for Eb	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$217.20	0	0	0	$0

      Notification of initial

      performance test – Eb	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$217.20	0	0	0	$0

     Annual compliance

     reports for Ea	16	1	16	7	112	5.6	11.2	$12,163.42	0	0	0	$0

     Annual opacity report of

     no excess emission for Ea k	8	1	8	5.6	44.8	2.24	4.48	$4,865.36	0	0 0	$0

     Annual opacity report for

     excess emission for Ea l	16	1	16	1.4	22.4	1.12	2.24	$2,432.68	0	0	0 $0

     Report of daily weight of

     MSW and fuel for Ea	34	4	136	7	952	47.6	95.2	$103,389.10	0	0	0	$0

     Appendix F reports for Ea	11	4	44	7	308	15.4	30.8	$33,449.42	0	0	0 $0

     Initial compliance report

     for Eb	40	1	40	4	160	8	16	$17,376.32	0	0	0	$0

     Annual compliance report

     for Eb	40	1	40	4	160	8	16	$17,376.32	0	0	0	$0

     Semiannual excess

     emission report Eb m	17	2	34	4	136	6.8	13.6	$ 14,769.88	0	0	0	$0

     Appendix F reports for Eb n	11	4	44	4	176	8.8	17.6	$19,113.96	0	0	0 $0

     Initial site selection

     analysis/report for Eb	270	1	270	4	1,080	54	108	$117,290.16	0	0	0 $0

     Public meeting and

     comment response for Eb	140	1	140	4	560	28	56	$60,817.12	0	0	0	$0

Subtotal for reporting

4,644.62

	11,823.6

	4.  Recordkeeping  requirements

A.  Read instructions	See 3A

	    B.  Plan activities	See 4E

    C.  Implement activities	See 4E

D.  Develop record system 	See 4E

E.  Time to enter information

 Records of SSM for Ea o	1.5	104	156	7	1,092	54.6	109.2	$118,593.38	0	0 0	$0

 Record emission

 measurements Ea o	1.5	104	156	7	1,092	54.6	109.2	$118,593.38	0	0	0	$0

 Record of employee

 review of operation for Ea p	4	2	8	7	56	2.8	5.6	$6,081.72	0	0	0	$0

 Record of emission rates,

 and computation tests for Eb q 	1.5	94	141	4	564	28.2	56.4	$61,251.52	0 0	0	$0

 Record of SSM for Eb q	1.5	94	141	4	564	28.2	56.4	$61,251.52	0	0	0	$0

 Record of employee

 review of operation for Eb r	4	2	8	4	32	1.6	3.2	$3,475.26	0	0	0	$0

 Record amount of  sorbent

 for Hg control for Eb 	0.1	94	9.4	4	37.6	1.88	3.76	$4,083.44	0	0	0	$0

    F.  Train personnel	See 4E

	    G.  Audits	See 4E

	Subtotal for recordkeeping

3,953.24

Subtotal

	7,476.4	373.82	747.64	$811,922.90

	11,823.6	$945,888.00

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST	Labor Hours (E+F+G)                         8,597.86	                    Labor Cost                                                      $811,922.90

Contractor Labor Hours                    11,823.6	                    Contractor Labor Cost                                $945,888.00

Total Hours                                       20,421.46	                    Total Cost                                                $1,757,810.90

Total Hours (rounded)                      20,421	                    Labor Cost                                                  $811,922.90

Assumptions:

a  We have estimated that an average of 12 sources are subject to subparts Ea and Eb.  Seven of these sources are currently subject to subpart Ea, with no additional sources

becoming subject to the regulation in the next three years.  The remaining five sources are subject to subpart Eb (4 existing and 1 new).  We have assumed that one additional

source per year will become subject to the standard over the next three years.  It is further assumed that there is an average of two affected facilities per plant per respondent.

b       b  This ICR uses the following labor rates:  $118.92 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $97.78 per hour for Technical labor, and $48.76 per hour

      for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December, 2010, Table 2. Civilian Workers, by Occupational

      and Industry groups.  The rates are from column 1, Total Compensation.  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to

      those employed by private industry.

c  We have estimated that the contractors’ rate would be $80.00 per hour.

d  We have assumed that one respondent will take 24 hours to perform initial performance test.

e  We have assume that it will take an emission testing contractor 1,053 hours to perform both initial performance test and repeat performance test for subpart Eb.

f  We have assumed that 20 percent of the respondents will repeat performance test for Eb.

g  We have assumed that 20 percent of respondents will repeat CEM demonstration activity for Eb.

h  We have assumed that all of the seven respondents for subpart Ea will have to complete an annual compliance test.

i  We have assumed that it will take an emission testing contractor 826 hours to complete an annual compliance test for Eb.

j  We have assume that four respondents for subpart Eb will have to complete an annual compliance test.

k  We have assumed that 80 percent of respondents will file an opacity report of no excess emission for Ea.

l  We have assumed that 20 percent of respondents will file an opacity report of excess emission for Ea.

m  We have assumed that four of the respondents will be required to write semiannual excess emission report for Eb two times per year.

n  We have assumed that four of the respondents will write the appendix F reports four times per year.

o  We have assumed that all seven respondents for subpart Ea will each take 104 hours to complete task.

p  We have assumed that all respondents for subpart Ea will each take 4 hours two times per year to record employee review of operations.

q  We have assumed that each of the four respondents will take 1.5 hours 94 times per year to enter information.

r  We have assumed that each of the four respondents for subpart Eb will take four hours two times per year to enter employee review of operation information.

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden – NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea and Eb)

Activity	(A)

EPA person- hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per plant

per year	(C)

EPA person- hours per plant per year (C=AxB)	(D)

Plants per year (a)	(E)

Technical person- hours per year (E=CxD)	(F)

Management person-hours per year (Ex0.05)

	(G)

Clerical person-hours per year

(Ex0.1)

	(H)

Cost ($) b

Initial performance tests for Ea	180	1	180	0	0	0	0	$0

Review report of initial performance test for Ea	24	1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

Repeat performance test for Ea	12	1	12	0	0	0	0	$0

Repeat performance test for Eb c	12	1	12	0.2	2.4	0.12	0.24	$124.37

Report review for Ea

    Notification of construction	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

    Notification of actual startup	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

    Notification of initial test                      	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

    Notification of CMS demonstration	12	1	12	0	0	0	0	$0

Review of CEMS demonstration for Ea	96	1	96	0	0	0	0	$0

Report review for Eb d

    Notification of construction	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$103.65

    Notification of actual startup	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$103.65

    Notification of initial performance test	8	1	8	1	8	0.4	0.8	$414.60

    Notification of CEMS demonstration	5	1	5	1	5	0.25	0.5	$256.62

Review CEMS demonstration for Eb	40	1	40	1	40	2	4	$2,072.98

Review excess emission reports for Ea

    No excess emission report e	8	1	8	5.6	44.8	2.24	4.48	$2,321.73

    Excess emission report f	2	1	2	1.4	2.8	0.14	0.28	$1,309.60

Review semiannual excess emission reports for Eb g	12	2	24	4	96	4.8	9.6 $4,973.16

Review quarterly appendix F reports for Ea h	0.5	4	2	7	14	0.7	1.4 $725.54

Review quarterly compliance report for Ea h	8	4	32	7	224	11.2	22.4 $11,608.68

Review annual compliance reports for Eb i	5	1	5	4	20	1	2	$1,036.49

Review annual compliance tests for Ea j	18	1	18	7	126	6.3	12.6	$6,529.89

Review siting requirements study for Eb k	24	1	24	4	96	4.8	9.6	$4,975.16

Subtotal

	683	34.15	68.3	$36,556.12

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST

(rounded)

785.45

785 (rounded)

$36,556

Assumptions:

a.  We have estimated that an average of 12 sources are subject to subparts Ea and Eb.  Seven of these sources are currently subject to subpart Ea, with no additional sources

becoming subject to the regulation in the next three years.  The remaining five sources are subject to subpart Eb (4 existing and 1 new).  We have assumed that one additional

source per year will become subject to the standard over the next three years.  It is further assumed that there is an average of two affected facilities per plant per respondent.

b  This cost is based on the following labor rates which incorporates a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses: $62.27 Managerial rate (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 x 1.6), $46.21 Technical rate (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 x 1.6), and $25.01 Clerical rate (GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 x 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 2011 General Schedule which excludes locality rates of pay

c  It is estimated that respondents will take 12 hours once per year to perform retest preparations and observance for subpart Eb.

d  We have assumed that only one respondent will be required to perform report review for Eb.

e. It is estimated that 80 percent of respondents will review reports for no excess emission for subpart Ea.

f  It is assumed that 20 percent of respondents will review reports for excess emission for subpart Ea.

g.  We have assumed that all four respondents that are subject to subpart EB will review semiannual excess emission reports.

h.  We have assumed that all seven respondents that are currently subject to subpart Ea will have to review quarterly reports.

i  We have assumed that all four respondents that are subject to subpart Eb will have to review annual compliance reports.

j  We have assumed that it will take 18 hours to review the annual compliance test for Ea.

k  All of the four respondents that are subject to subpart Eb will have to review the siting requirement’s study.

 PAGE

 PAGE   19

 PAGE