[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 149 (Friday, August 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36394-36400]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16499]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9965-55-OECA]

Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Data System Recent
Posting: Agency Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring
Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This action announces applicability determinations,
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and/
or the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each complete
document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) data
system is available on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance
Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act
Compliance Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. The
letters and memoranda on the ADI may be located by date, office of
issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word
searches. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria
Malave at EPA by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical questions about individual
applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the
contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the
absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in
40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a
determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the
commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. The
EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as
applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the
NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards and/or Generally Available Control
Technology (GACT) standards] and Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources
may request applicability determinations, the EPA also responds to
written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and Section
111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek
permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different from
the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g),
63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f).
    The EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly
referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, the EPA
responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP
regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category.
    These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to
which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the regulation.
The EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to
as regulatory interpretations.
    The EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory
interpretations, and posts them to the ADI on a regular basis. In
addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to
the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The
ADI is a data system on the Internet with over three thousand EPA
letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, and
stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search for letters and
memoranda by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control
number, or by string word searches.
    Today's action comprises a summary of 31 such documents added to
the ADI on July 21, 2017. This action lists the subject and header of
each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the letter
or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from
the ADI on the Internet through the through the Resources and Guidance
Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act
Compliance Monitoring Web site under ``Air'' at: https://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI data system on July 21, 2017; the applicable
category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63
(as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title of the
document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter.
    We have also included an abstract of each document identified with
its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely
to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended
as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This action does not
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1). For
example, this document does not convert an applicability determination
for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport
to make a previously non-binding document binding.

                                  ADI Determinations Uploaded on July 21, 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Control No.              Categories                   Subparts                          Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1600009.............  NSPS.....................  Ja.........................  Regulatory Interpretation on an
                                                                               Alternative Calibration Procedure
                                                                               for Hydrogen Sulfide Monitor at a
                                                                               Refinery.

1600010.............  NSPS.....................  Ec.........................  Alternate Monitoring Operating
                                                                               Parameter Limits for Two Waste
                                                                               Incinerators.
1600011.............  NSPS.....................  EEEE.......................  Alternative Operating Parameter
                                                                               Limits for Commercial
                                                                               Incinerator.
1600012.............  NSPS.....................  J, Ja......................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Hydrogen Sulfide in Portable
                                                                               Temporary Thermal Oxidizer Units
                                                                               at Refineries.
1600013.............  NSPS.....................  J, Ja......................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Hydrogen Sulfide in Portable
                                                                               Temporary Thermal Oxidizer Units
                                                                               at Refineries.
1600018.............  NSPS.....................  NNN, RRR...................  Regulatory Interpretation for a
                                                                               Biodiesel Manufacturing Facility.
1600027.............  NSPS.....................  A, Ja......................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Span Gas Concentration and High
                                                                               Range Validation Standards for
                                                                               H2S CEMS at a Refinery.
1600028.............  NSPS.....................  J..........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Revised Process Parameter Limits
                                                                               at a Refinery.
1600029.............  NSPS.....................  A, Ec......................  Alternative Monitoring Operating
                                                                               Parameter Limits for Air
                                                                               Pollution Control System at a
                                                                               Medical Waste Incinerator.
1600030.............  NSPS.....................  J..........................  Withdrawal of Alternative
                                                                               Monitoring Plan for Sulfur
                                                                               Loading Vent Stream at a
                                                                               Refinery.
1600031.............  NSPS.....................  J..........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan
                                                                               Revision for Re-Routed Vent Gas
                                                                               Stream at a Refinery.
1600032.............  NSPS.....................  Ja.........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Flares at a Refinery.
1600033.............  NSPS.....................  Ja.........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for a
                                                                               Flare at a Refinery.
1600034.............  NSPS.....................  GG.........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               NOX Emissions during Startup from
                                                                               Stationary Gas Turbines.
1600035.............  NSPS.....................  JJJJ.......................  Performance Test Waiver for
                                                                               Stationary Spark Ignition
                                                                               Internal Combustion Engines.
1600036.............  NSPS.....................  UUU........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Bag Leak Detection System In Lieu
                                                                               of COMS at a Sand Reclamation
                                                                               Unit.
1600037.............  NSPS.....................  UUU........................  Applicability Determination for
                                                                               Industrial Sand Dryer.
1600038.............  NSPS.....................  Ja.........................  Alternative Calibration Methods
                                                                               for Total Reduced Sulfur
                                                                               Analyzers at a Refinery.
1600039.............  NSPS.....................  UUU........................  Alternative Monitoring Plan In
                                                                               Lieu of COMS at a Sand
                                                                               Reclamation Unit.
1600040.............  NSPS.....................  UUU........................  Request for Exemption to Opacity
                                                                               Monitoring Requirements for
                                                                               Thermal Sand Reclamation Units.
1600041.............  NSPS.....................  JJJJ.......................  Alternative Test Method for Spark
                                                                               Ignition Engines.
A160001.............  Asbestos, NESHAP.........  M..........................  Waiver Request from Asbestos
                                                                               Testing for Bare Concrete Deck
                                                                               Bridges.
A160002.............  Asbestos, NESHAP.........  M..........................  Applicability Determination for
                                                                               Airport Taxiways.
M160005.............  MACT.....................  XXXXXX.....................  Applicability Determination for a
                                                                               Steel Foundry.
M160007.............  MACT, NESHAP.............  JJJJ, SSSSS................  Applicability Determination for
                                                                               Mica Sheets Manufacturing.
M160009.............  MACT, NESHAP.............  VVVVVV.....................  Applicability Determination for
                                                                               Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
                                                                               Facility.
M160017.............  MACT.....................  JJJJ.......................  Applicability Determination for
                                                                               Web Coating Manufacturing
                                                                               Facility.
M160019.............  MACT, NSPS...............  J, UUU.....................  Alternative Monitoring Plan for
                                                                               Wet Gas Scrubber at a Refinery.
M160020.............  MACT, GACT, NESHAP, NSPS.  AAa, YYYYY, ZZZZZ..........  Applicability Determination for a
                                                                               Steelmaking Facility.
M160021.............  MACT.....................  JJJ........................  Alternative Monitoring Method In
                                                                               Lieu of Continuous Flow Monitor
                                                                               for a Thermal Oxidizer.
Z160005.............  MACT, NESHAP.............  PPPPP, ZZZZ................  Applicability Determination for
                                                                               Engine Testing and Emissions
                                                                               Laboratory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [1600009]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the use of the same calibration gas to
perform quality assurance checks on both the low and the high ranges
for a dual range hydrogen sulfide (H2S) continuous emission monitoring
system subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja at the Ergon Refinery in
Vicksburg, Mississippi (Ergon)?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), the EPA believes that the
Ergon's proposed monitoring alternative is acceptable to satisfy the QA
checks on the high concentration range for the Sola II analyzer. EPA's
guidance to MDEQ is based upon the expectation that the monitor's
higher range will rarely be used to demonstrate compliance because the
H2S concentration at the inlet of the Refinery Flare will need to be
below the monitor span value to meet the NSPS Ja limits, the highly
linear response of the monitor should yield accurate results for the
whole range of operation, and the safety hazards to plant employees
associated with keeping high concentration H2S calibration gas
cylinders onsite being valid concerns due to H2S high toxicity.

Abstract for [1600010]

    Q: Does the EPA approve site-specific alternative monitoring
operating parameter limits (OPLs) under NSPS subpart Ec for the
operation of two hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators (HMIWI)
at the Stericycle Springhill facility located in Sarepta, Louisiana
(Stericycle)?
    A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves Stericycle's alternative
OPLs, which are consistent with the permit conditions, the equipment
configuration of the incinerators, and the operation of the associated
air pollution control devices. EPA approval is contingent on
Stericycle's successful completion of performance testing on both HWIMI
to demonstrate compliance with NSPS subpart Ec emission limits.
Stericycle shall conduct a performance test on each HMIWI in accordance
with 40 CFR 60.8 and consistent with the proposed performance test plan
included in the EPA response letter. If performance testing shows that
the facility is not in compliance with NSPS Ee emission limits,
retesting will be required, and the OPLs established for this petition
approval may require modification, and in the event that new or
modified OPLs must be established, a revised OPL petition must be
submitted prior to retesting, along with a revised test plan for review
and approval.

Abstract for [1600011]

    Q: Does EPA approve the revision of alternative Operating Parameter
Limits (OPLs) for additional control equipment used in lieu of a wet
scrubber at a contraband incinerator operated by SW Border Incineration
LLC, in McAllen,

Texas, which meets the criteria of an Other Solid Waste Incinerator
(OSWI) unit under NSPS subpart EEEE?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves the revision of alternative OPLs
contingent on the successful completion of performance testing to
demonstrate compliance with NSPS subpart EEEE emission limits. The
previously approved and additional OPLs are consistent with the special
conditions of Texas Air Permit, which the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality approved the test plan, along with the RATA
protocols. If performance testing shows that the facility is not in
compliance with NSPS EEEE emission limits, retesting will be required,
and the OPLs established for this petition approval may require
modification. If additional new or modified OPLs must be established to
achieve and maintain compliance with NSPS EEEE, a revised OPL petition
must be submitted prior to retesting, along with a revised test plan
for review and approval.

Abstract for [1600012]

    Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) in
lieu of using a continuous emission monitoring system (CMS) for Event
Corporation to monitor Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) during tank
degassing and similar operations controlled by a portable temporary
thermal oxidizer subject to NSPS subpart J and NSPS subpart Ja at
refineries located in the EPA Region 3?
    A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the AMP since installing and
operating an H2S CMS would be technically impractical due to
the short term nature of tank degassing and similar operations
performed by Event at refineries located in EPA Region 3. EPA included
the detailed AMP sampling steps and compliance demonstration procedures
and conditions in the EPA final determination letter.

Abstract for [1600013]

    Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) in
lieu of using continuous emission monitoring system (CMS) for TriStar
Global Energy Solution (Tristar) to monitor hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) during tank degassing and similar operations
controlled by portable temporary thermal oxidizer units subject to NSPS
subpart J and NSPS subpart Ja, at refineries located in EPA Region 3?
    A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the AMP since installing and
operating an H2S continuous emission monitoring system would be
technically impractical due to the short term nature of tank degassing
and similar operations performed by Tristar at refineries in EPA Region
3. The EPA included the AMP detailed sampling steps, the compliance
demonstration procedures and conditions in the final determination
letter.

Abstract for [1600018]

    Q: Does the EPA determine that the proposed addition of a biodiesel
manufacturing facility at a plant owned by Patriot Renewable Fuels
(Patriot) and located in Annawan, Illinois is subject to 40 CFR part 60
subpart RRR (VOC Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactor Processes)?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA), the EPA believes that
the proposed addition to the biodiesel plant would meet the
applicability criteria of subpart RRR. Glycerol, is a chemical listed
in 40 CFR 60.707. The EPA considers either of the following downstream
uses as indicative of the production of a listed chemical as a
``product'': (1) Production for sale of a listed chemical; or (2) use
in another process where that listed chemical is needed. Glycerol is
produced from com oil via a hydrolysis reaction during the manufacture
of biodiesel. When sent to the fermenters, glycerol is used to increase
the ethanol yield (i.e., it is needed in the process) and is,
therefore, an intermediate (i.e., a compound that is produced for the
use in the production of other compounds or chemicals) under 40 CFR
60.700. Because the glycerol sent to the fermenters is an intermediate,
the glycerol is a product. Therefore, our guidance to Illinois EPA is
that the Patriot facility would be considered an affected facility
subject to Subpart RRR after the addition of the proposed biodiesel
plant.

Abstract for [1600027]

    Q: Does the EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan (AMP) to use
alternative concentrations of span gases used to check daily
calibration drift, and as high range validation standards used during
cylinder gas audits (CGAs) and relative accuracy test audits (RATAs),
under NSPS subpart A for the No. 2 flare Continuous Emission Monitoring
System (CEMS) at the Delek Refining (Delek) facility located in Tyler,
Texas and covered under NSPS subpart Ja?
    A: Yes. Based on the process data and detector information
submitted, the EPA conditionally approves Delek's AMP to reduce the
concentrations of the calibration gas and validation standards to
certain specified range values on the No. 2 Flare CEMS. Delek must
conduct linearity analysis on the pulsed ultraviolet fluorescence
(PUVF) detector once every three years to determine the detector's
linearity across the entire range of expected concentrations of gas
vent streams. The analysis must demonstrate that linearity is
maintained for the specified vent gas stream hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
concentration range. A report of each completed linearity analysis must
be submitted to the EPA Region 6 and to the State, and records must be
maintained on-site.

Abstract for [1600028]

    Q: Does the EPA approve revised process parameter limits for a
previously approved Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for the Valero
Refining-Texas, LP facility (Valero) located in Corpus Christi, Texas
and subject to NSPS subpart J?
    A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves revised process parameter
limits that should not exceed the new upper value for total sulfur and
the higher proposed temperature. Valero must continue to follow the
steps outlined in the previously approved AMP for monitoring the vent
stream. If refinery operations change such that the sulfur content of
the vent stream changes from representations made for the AMP, then
Valero must document the changes and follow the appropriate steps
outlined in 40 CFR 60.105(b)(3)(i)-(iii).

Abstract for [1600029]

    Q: Does the EPA conditionally approve revised alternative
monitoring Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) for a pollution control
system on a new medical waste incinerator subject to NSPS subpart Ec,
which consists of a wet gas scrubber (WGS) followed by a carbon
adsorber and cartridge filter, located at the University of Texas
Medical Branch (UTMBG) in Galveston, Texas?
    A: Yes. Based on process-specific information and data provided by
UTMBG, the EPA conditionally approves the revised operating parameters
for the WGS, carbon adsorber and cartridge filter. UTMBG must conduct a
second representative performance test in order to establish revised
numerical limits for the operating parameters conditionally approved.
The follow up performance testing must be conducted in accordance with
40 CFR 60.8 and State requirements, with no deviations from the EPA-
approved test methods or quality assurance protocols. Other OPLs
specified by Table 3 of NSPS subpart Ec

and the facility's minor source air permit also must be included in the
performance test if the changes affect those pollutants or operating
limits. If performance testing shows that the facility is not in
compliance with NSPS Ec emission limits, retesting will be required,
and the OPLs established for this petition approval may require
modification. If additional new or modified OPLs must be established to
achieve and maintain compliance with NSPS Ee, a revised OPL petition
must be submitted prior to retesting, along with a revised test plan
for review and approval.

Abstract for [1600030]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the withdrawal of a previously approved
Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a sulfur loading vent stream at
the Valero Mckee Refinery located in Sunray, Texas and covered under
NSPS subpart J?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves the AMP withdrawal of a previously
approved AMP because emissions from the tail gas incinerators are
monitored for compliance with the sulfur dioxide (SO2) limit
of 40 CFR 60. 104(a)(2)(i) via a continuous emissions monitoring system
(CEMS), in accordance with 60.105(a)(3) of NSPS J, as modified on June,
24, 2008, and is consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 226 of
the consent decree.

Abstract for [1600031]

    Q: Does the EPA approve revisions to an Alternative Monitoring Plan
(AMP) that was previously conditionally approved for re-routing a
refinery fuel gas vent stream to an alternate combustion device at the
Valero Refining-Meraux LLC (Valero Meraux) facility located in Meraux,
Louisiana subject to NSPS subpart J?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves the revisions to a previously
conditionally approved AMP. Valero Meraux proposed re-routing the
affected refinery fuel gas vent gas stream to a reformer recharge
heater instead of combusting the stream at a stripper reboiler heater.
Valero Meraux is required to continue monitoring and controlling the
relevant process parameters as summarized in the EPA's previous
conditional AMP approval. If refinery operations change such that the
sulfur content of the vent stream changes from representations made for
the AMP, then Valero must document the changes and follow the
appropriate steps outlined in 40 CFR 60. 105(b)(3)(i)-(iii).

Abstract for [1600032]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to
use the data obtained from the total sulfur (TS) continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) for one flare at plant 1 and one flare at
plant 2 at the Suncor Energy (USA) Inc. (Suncor) Commerce City Refinery
in Commerce City, Colorado subject to NSPS subpart Ja?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves Suncor's AMP for flares at plants 1 and 2,
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(i), to use the data obtained from the TS CEMS
low range two-point daily calibration drift and two-point quarterly
audits, as well as a one-point challenge in the high range. Because
Suncor is requesting this AMP based on a significant safety hazard to
refinery personnel and because this monitoring is being performed to
detect the threshold for a root cause analysis, not to monitor for
compliance with an emission limit, the EPA will allow for minimal use
of high concentration calibration gases. This approach avoids routine
use of higher level calibration gases in the field; higher level gases
are only used for quarterly audits and annual testing and could be
brought on-site by a testing contractor and then removed after the
test/audit.

Abstract for [1600033]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) to
use the data obtained from the total sulfur (TS) continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) for a flare at plant 3 of the Suncor Energy
(USA) Inc. (Suncor) Commerce City Refinery in Commerce City, Colorado
subject to NSPS subpart Ja?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves Suncor's AMP for a flare at plant 3,
pursuant to 40 CFR. 40 CFR 60.13(i), to use the data obtained from the
TS CEMS low range two-point daily calibration drift and two-point
quarterly audits, as well as a one-point challenge in the high range.
Because Suncor is requesting this AMP based on a significant safety
hazard to refinery personnel and because this monitoring is being
performed to detect the threshold for a root cause analysis, not to
monitor for compliance with an emission limit, the EPA will allow for
minimal use of high concentration calibration gases. This approach
avoids routine use of higher level calibration gases in the field;
higher level gases are only used for quarterly audits and annual
testing and could be brought on-site by a testing contractor and then
removed after the test/audit.

Abstract for [1600034]

    Q: Does the EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) under
40 CFR 60.13(i) for the monitoring of emissions using an emission
factor to determine NOx emissions from two stationary gas combustion
turbines located at the Power House (Plant) operated by the University
of Colorado Boulder (UCB) in Boulder, Colorado, in lieu of determining
emissions through Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS)
installed on the bypass stack, to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limit under NSPS subpart GG?
    A: Yes. Based on the most recent stack testing for NOx emissions
during startup of turbine 1 and turbine 2, the EPA will allow UCB use
of the 0.32 lb/MMBtu emission factor rather than determining emissions
through CEMS installed on the bypass stack. The use of this emission
factor provides a conservative emissions estimate and is consistent
with UCB permit issued by the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). The EPA or
CDPHE APCD may require UCB to conduct additional testing of emissions
at the bypass stack to verify the NOx concentrations during turbine
startup.

Abstract for [1600035]

    Q: Does the EPA approve waiver of a performance testing requirement
for six identical stationary engines subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart
JJJJ at the Bio Town Ag facility in Reynolds, Indiana (Bio Town)?
    A: Yes. Based on the information Bio Town provided, the EPA
approves the performance test waiver request for six identical
stationary engines operated in the same manner, pursuant to 40 CFR
60.8(b)(4). Specifically, EPA approves conducting a performance test
every 8,760 hours or 3 years, whichever comes first, for the three
engines that were constructed in 2011, and a performance test for the
three engines that were constructed in 2014, in a staggered schedule as
provided in the determination letter. Bio Town must meet Section VII. 2
of the April 27, 2009, Clean Air Act National Stack Testing Guidance,
which lists the conditions that must be met for approval of a
performance test waiver for identical emissions units.

Abstract for [1600036]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the use of a bag leak detection system
(BLDS) as an alternative monitoring method in lieu of a continuous
opacity monitoring system

(COMS) for purposes of meeting the monitoring requirements under 40 CFR
part 60 subpart UUU, Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers
in Mineral Industries, at the Waupaca Foundry, Inc. plant (Waupaca)
located in Tell City, Indiana?
    A: Yes. The EPA conditionally approves the Waupaca alternative
monitoring method to use BLDS in lieu of a COMS or conducting daily
Method 9 readings for the mechanical and thermal sand reclamation unit
(P27) being installed at Waupaca's Plant 5. Waupaca will need to
develop and prepare a site-specific monitoring plan for the BLDS
installed under this alternative monitoring method and meet the
conditions specified in the EPA response letter. In addition, Waupaca
will need to revise its current major source construction permit for
the sand reclamation project, as well as its Title V permit, to
incorporate this alternative monitoring method. The approval of the
proposed alternative monitoring method does not alter Waupaca's legal
obligation to comply with all other applicable requirements associated
with Subparts A and UUU, including meeting the opacity limit.

Abstract for [1600037]

    Q1: Does the EPA determine the start-up date of Northern Industrial
Sand's (NIS) sand dryer located in Auburn, Wisconsin and subject to 40
CFR part 60 subpart UUU is the date the construction permit was issued
(June 18, 2015), or the date the sand dryer first processed sand (July
17, 2015)?
    A1: The EPA determines that the initial start-up of NIS's sand
dryer in question is July 17, 2015. ``Start-up'' is defined at 40 CFR
60. 2 as the setting in operation of an ``affected facility'' for any
purpose. Based on the information provided in your letter, the sand
dryer at NIS first processed sand on July 17, 2015.
    Q2: For purposes of initial performance testing, does the EPA
determine that the ``180 days after start-up'' requirement is based on
consecutive days (including non-operational days) or operating days?
    A2: The EPA determines that the 180 days after start-up requirement
is based on calendar days, not operating days. The General Provisions,
at 40 CFR 60. 19(a), state ``For the purposes of this part, time
periods specified in days shall be measured in calendar days, even if
the word `calendar' is absent, unless otherwise specified in an
applicable requirement.'' Neither the General Provisions, at 40 CFR60.
8, nor the requirements of performance testing under subpart UUU, at 40
CFR 60.732 and 60.736, define the time periods for performance testing
as anything other than ``days''.
    Q3: Does the EPA recommend any other options for NIS to consider
for initial performance testing under subpart UUU before the 180-day
deadline expires?
    A3: Yes. The EPA suggests two testing options. Option 1: NIS may
conduct initial performance testing of the sand dryer at its desired
maximum throughput and store the processed sand until needed. Based on
the information provided, NIS has more than adequate storage capacity
for the processed sand to test under this option. Option 2: NIS may
conduct performance testing of the sand dryer at less than its desired
maximum throughput. However, if this option is selected, NIS will need
to take operational restrictions to the reduced throughput at which it
tested to show compliance with subpart UUU. The operational
restrictions will need to be incorporated into a federally enforceable
document (typically a federally enforceable construction or operating
permit). If, at a later date, NIS is able to operate at an increased
throughput and desires to operate at that increased throughput, it will
need to revise its underlying federally enforceable document to
accommodate the increased throughput. NIS will also be required to
conduct another performance test at that increased rate and demonstrate
compliance with applicable limits.
    Q4: What does the EPA determine are the monitoring requirements
following initial performance testing for the sand dryer?
    A4: Based on the information NIS provided, the EPA determines that
the sand dryer is an industrial sand fluid bed dryer. The monitoring
requirements are therefore either: (a) Installation and operation of a
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS), or (b) daily visible
emission readings using U. S. EPA Reference Method 9 (for no less than
18 minutes each day). The monitoring requirements of subpart UUU are
found at 40 CFR 60.734(a-d).

Abstract for [1600038]

    Q1: Does EPA approve three alternative calibration methods for the
total reduced sulfur (TRS) analyzers associated with three flares that
are affected facilities under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ja at the Lima
Refining Company (Lima Refining) refinery in Lima, Ohio?
    A1: Based on the information provided by Lima Refining, EPA
approves two of the three alternative calibration methods requested for
the TRS monitors to address safety concerns involving storage,
handling, and life expectancy (short expiration dates) of high hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) concentration gas cylinders on site. The two
conditional approved calibration methods are: (1) The use of low H2S
concentration cylinders to calibrate TRS monitors provided that
laboratory analyses demonstrate the linearity of the instruments for
the target compound used across the entire sulfur concentration range
expected; and (2) the use of a sample dilution system in conjunction
with the TRS monitoring systems being installed provided that the
dilution system can be challenged at the ratio Lima Refining intends to
use, and the capability of the analyzer to detect the lowest expected
concentrations of the target compound(s) under typical operating
conditions when the gas is diluted at the dilution ratio selected. EPA
is disapproving the use of a surrogate gas to calibrate the TRS
monitoring systems. This disapproval is based on the fact that the
monitoring requirements of subpart Ja are TRS specific. Approvable
calibration methodologies should be based on pollutant specific
monitoring, when such options are available, rather than a surrogate
gas. Since there are feasible pollutant specific options, EPA
disapproves the use of a surrogate gas to calibrate the TRS monitors.
    Q2: Does EPA approve single point calibrations for each of the TRS
analyzers associated with three flares that are affected facilities
under subpart Ja?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves Lima Refining's request to use single point
calibrations for the daily calibration requirements (zero and one other
target compound(s) concentration). However, Lima Refining must conduct
multi-point calibrations on at least a quarterly basis. Other
conditions and requirements of this approval are included in the EPA
response letter.
    Q3: Does EPA approve a reduced span to that required by subpart Ja
for the TRS analyzer associated with the aromatics flare that is an
affected facility under subpart Ja?
    A3: Yes. EPA conditionally approves Lima Refining's request to
reduce the instrument span from 5,000 ppm to 1,000 ppm for the
aromatics flare (LIU flare) TRS monitoring system. This approval is
based on the low expected TRS concentration from the aromatics flare.
However, if readings associated with the aromatics flare exceed 1,000
ppm, then Lima Refining will need to re-span the TRS monitor to a
higher value which includes the higher concentration measured.

Abstract for [1600039]

    Q: Does EPA approve the use of daily visible emission observations
and baghouse pressure drop readings associated with the thermal sand
reclamation unit in lieu of a continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS) to meet the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR subpart UUU
(Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral
Industries) at the Urschel Laboratories, Inc. (Urschel) in Valparaiso,
IN?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the alternative monitoring
method to meet the monitoring requirements of subpart UUU at 40 CFR
60.734. Urschel will need to evaluate and establish an appropriate
range for the pressure drop across the baghouse based on a performance
test at the thermal sand reclamation unit to ensure compliance with
subpart UUU. The alternative monitoring program and associated
recordkeeping and reporting approved through this letter must be
incorporated into its federal enforceable state operating permit.
Additional conditions and requirements of this approval are included in
the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [1600040]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the Urschel Laboratories, Inc. (Urschel)
thermal sand reclamation unit located in Valparaiso, Indiana is exempt
from the opacity monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart UUU
(Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral
Industries) since its particulate emissions are well below 11 tons per
year?
    A: No. EPA determines that Urschel's thermal sand reclamation unit
is an affected facility subject to subpart UUU and is therefore subject
to the monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 60.734. Since the thermal sand
reclamation unit is not one of the listed facilities under 40 CFR
60.734(b) or (c) and does not use a wet control device (40 CFR
60.734(d)), Urschel must install and operate a continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS). However, the General Provisions at 40 CFR
60.13(i) provides an owner or operator of an affected facility the
ability to request, among other things, alternative monitoring to that
required by an applicable subpart.

Abstract for [1600041]

    Q: Does the EPA approve using an alternative test method ASTM D-
6348-12 in lieu of ASTM D-6348-03 for measuring pollutants in the
engine exhaust per NSPS subpart JJJJ at Samson Resources Company's
facilities on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation in La Plata County,
Colorado?
    A: Yes. The EPA approves the use of the updated ASTM method, D-
6348-12 in lieu of D-6348-03 as prescribed in Table 2 to NSPS JJJJ for
performance testing of engines at the requested facilities, pursuant to
40 CFR 60.8(b)(2).

Abstract for [A160001]

    Q1: Does the EPA approve a waiver from asbestos testing
requirements for bare concrete deck bridges under 40 CFR part 61,
subpart M (Asbestos NESHAP), for the Kansas Department of
Transportation?
    A1: No. Under the Asbestos NESHAP, there is no regulatory provision
that allows the EPA to issue a waiver.
    Q2: Does the EPA determine that bare concrete deck bridges are
subject to the Asbestos NESHAP regulation?
    A2: Yes. The EPA determines that concrete is considered a building
material and needs to be evaluated for asbestos-content. At a minimum,
it must be thoroughly inspected.

Abstract for [A160002]

    Q1: Does the EPA determine that airport taxiways are subject to 40
CFR part 61, subpart M (Asbestos NESHAP)?
    A1: Yes. The EPA indicated to the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MO DNR) that airport taxiways are a ``facility component''
as defined in 40 CFR 61.141 and therefore subject to the regulation. At
a minimum, the taxiway is subject to the thorough inspection
requirement of the regulation. Further, MO DNR asks that EPA reconsider
a previous applicability determination which stated airport runways
were not subject to the Asbestos NESHAP. This applicability
determination supersedes the June 20, 1997 applicability determination
with ADI Control No. A970006.
    Q2: Does the EPA determine that repair operations on a taxiway are
considered a renovation or demolition operation under the Asbestos
NESHAP regulation?
    A2: Yes. The EPA determines if work is to be done on an airport
taxiway, it is considered a renovation operation as there is no load-
supporting structural member being wrecked or taken out as defined
under the demolition definition.

Abstract for [M160005]

    Q: Does EPA determine that McConway and Torley's Lawrenceville
Foundry in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is subject to 40 CFR part 63
subpart XXXXXX (subpart 6X), NESHAP for Nine Metal Fabrication and
Finishing Source Categories?
    A: No. EPA has determined that subpart 6X does not apply to the
Lawrenceville Foundry based on not meeting rule applicability
requirements due to current operations, an evaluation of the SIC/NAICS
codes associated with the facility, and the corresponding activities in
which the facility is primarily engaged in that involves manufacturing
of railroad car couplings.

Abstract for [M160007]

    Q1: Does EPA determine that the raw material used by Mica Company
of Canada Incorporated (Mica Co.) at their Newport News, Virginia
facility meets the definition of a ``web'' and that both manufacturing
lines are subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ?
    A1: Based on the description provided by Mica Co., EPA determines
that the raw material used by Mica Co. processing line 2 meets the
definition of a ``web'' at 40 CFR 63.3300 since the mica paper is fed
from a roll to the web coating line. Therefore, this processing line is
subject to MACT subpart JJJJ. Processing line 1 does not meet the
definition of web and is therefore not subject to MACT subpart JJJJ.
    Q2: Does EPA determine that the end products manufactured by Mica
Co. meet the definition of a ``refractory product'' and that both
processing lines are therefore subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart SSSSS?
    A2: No. Based on the description provided by Mica Co., EPA
determines that the mica sheet insulating products manufactured by Mica
Co. do not meet the definition of a ``refractory product'' at 40 CFR
63.9824; therefore, the manufacturing lines are not subject to MACT
subpart SSSSS.

Abstract for [M160009]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Women's Health pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Cincinnati,
Ohio (Teva) is subject to the NESHAP subpart VVVVVV Title V Permit
requirement if the facility took operational limits on organic
compounds to become an area source before the effective date of the
rule and now operate control devices, but would still be an area source
without the controls?
    A: No. EPA determines that the Teva pharmaceutical manufacturing
operations at the Cincinnati facility are not currently subject to the
Title V requirement in NESHAP subpart VVVVVV. Since the facility took
operational limits to obtain area source status prior to the effective
date of the rule, the Title V NESHAP subpart VVVVVV requirement does
not apply, even if it now operates controls. The

facility does not rely on a control device to maintain HAP emissions
below major source thresholds as was demonstrated with the potential to
emit analysis.

Abstract for [M160017]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the Owens Corning Insulating Systems,
LLC (OC) a wool fiberglass products manufacturing plant located in
Delmar, NY (Delmar), is subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ, NESHAP
for Paper and Other Web Coating Manufacturing?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by OC, EPA determines
that the Delmar plant still operates web coating lines after switching
from a phenol-formaldehyde binder to a starch binder and thus remains
subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ, and that the subsequent non
applicability determination for 40 CFR part 63 subpart NNN, the NESHAP
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing due to the binder switch is
irrelevant to the applicability status of 40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ.
This determination is consistent with the ``Once-In-Always-In'' policy.
The Delmar plant has been required to comply with subpart JJJJ
provisions (including emissions standards) since December 5, 2005, the
first substantive compliance date of rule, based on 40 CFR 63.320(a) of
the rule. The fact that OC chooses to comply with the subpart JJJJ
emission standards at the Delmar plant using a method it was already
using (i.e., the ``[u]se of `as-purchased' compliant coating
materials'') prior to the first substantive compliance date is
irrelevant to the applicability analysis.

Abstract for [M160019]

    Q: Does EPA approve an Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) for a Wet
Gas Scrubber (WGS) on a Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU)
subject to NSPS part 60 subpart J, and also NESHAP subpart UUU, for
parametric monitoring of opacity at the WGS in lieu of a Continuous
Opacity Monitoring System, due to moisture interference on opacity
readings in the stack at the Valero Refining Company (Valero) facility
in Ardmore, Oklahoma (Valero)?
    A: Yes. Based upon the design of the WGS unit and the process
specific information and performance test results provided by Valero,
EPA approves the AMP request and its operating parameter limits (OPLs)
for demonstrating compliance under NESHAP subpart UUU, which included
minimum Liquid-to-Gas Ratio, minimum water pressure to the quench/spray
tower nozzles, and minimum pressure drop across the Agglo-filtering
module. Valero shall incorporate the terms of this AMP approval into
the facility's New Source Review (NSR) and Title V permits for federal
enforceability. If refinery operations change, Valero shall conduct
another performance test to establish new limits for the OPLs listed in
the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [M160020]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the Ervin Amasteel facility in Adrian,
Michigan should be classified as a steel foundry subject to
requirements of the NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Source, at
40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZZ, and not the requirements under the NESHAP
for Area Sources for Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities, at 40
CFR part 63 subpart YYYYY, and the Standards of Performance for Steel
Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels
Constructed After August 17, 1983, at 40 CFR part 60 Subpart AAa (NSPS
AAa)?
    A: No. EPA determines that the Ervin Amasteel facility is not
subject to the requirements of NESHAP subpart ZZZZZ because the
facility is not an iron and steel foundry as defined in 40 CFR 63.10906
of the rule. Therefore, the Ervin Amasteel facility remains subject to
the applicable provisions of NESHAP subpart YYYYY and NSPS subpart AAa.

Abstract for [M160021]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring method for the bypass
valve line associated with the thermal oxidizer in lieu of a continuous
flow monitor or securing the bypass valve with a car seal or lock-and-
key type system to meet the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 63
subpart JJJ at the INEOS Barex USA LLC (INEOS) plant in Lima, Ohio?
    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by INEOS, including
concerns about installation of a flow monitor on this particular bypass
stream due to location and corrosion possibilities, EPA conditionally
approves the alternative monitoring method that requires continuous
monitoring of the bypass valve position associated with the thermal
oxidizer in accordance with 40 CFR 63.8(f)(2) and (4). The
recordkeeping and reporting conditions for approval are specified in
the EPA response letter.

Abstract for [Z160005]

    Q1: Does EPA determine that stationary engines being tested in a
test cell at Maine Maritime Academy (MMA) in Castine, Maine would be
subject to the NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
(RICE), 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ?
    A1: No. EPA determines that because the engines in question will be
tested at a stationary RICE test cell as defined in Subpart PPPPP, they
are not subject to subpart ZZZZ consistent with 40 CFR 63.6675 of
subpart ZZZZ.
    Q2: Does EPA determine that the proposed engine test cell at MMA,
which is an area source of hazardous air pollutants, would be subject
to the NESHAP for Engine Test Cell/Stands, 40 CFR part 63 subpart
PPPPP?
    A2: No. EPA determines that as long as MMA remains an area source
of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), it is not subject to subpart PPPPP,
which applies to owners or operators of engine test cells/stands at a
major source of HAPs.

    Dated: July 20, 2017.
David A. Hindin,
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
[FR Doc. 2017-16499 Filed 8-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 14243-14244]
[DOCID:fr17mr08-52]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2007-0607; FRL-8542-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Performance Measurement Reporting
for Training and Education/Outreach; EPA ICR No. 2255.01

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request for a new
collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of
the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 16,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2007-0607, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Hanlon, Office of Grants and
Debarment, Mail Code: 3903R, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-
564-2865; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Peggy Anthony, Office of Grants and Debarment,
Mail Code: 3903R, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 20, 2007, (72 FR 39805), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the
comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted
to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OA-2007-0607, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of
Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/
DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 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 Office of
Environmental Information Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Performance Measurement Reporting for Training and
Education/Outreach.
    ICR Number: EPA ICR No. 2255.01.
    ICR Status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond

to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in
title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA has developed some generic reporting tools to
supplement the existing performance reports submitted by assistance
agreement recipients under 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31. The new reporting
tools are designed to collect performance measurement information on
two types of activities performed by assistance agreement recipients:
training and education/outreach. Specifically, EPA has created generic
questions and reporting formats that will be made available to the EPA
programs and assistance agreement recipients. The tools are designed to
measure the extent to which the assistance agreement recipients achieve
the short-term and intermediate outcomes stated in their work plans for
trainings and education/outreach. The questions and formats are
flexible enough for use by any of the EPA programs.
    An assistance agreement recipient would review the reporting
formats and generic questions, select the format and questions that are
appropriate for its needs, and assemble them into a questionnaire. The
recipient would then submit its proposed questionnaire and supporting
materials to EPA, which would forward them to OMB after a review for
completeness and compliance. After receiving OMB approval through an
expedited clearance process, the assistance agreement recipient would
distribute the questionnaire and collect, tally, and report the
responses to EPA. Use of the forms would not be required, but used at
the discretion of the responsible program and assistance agreement
recipients.
    EPA has created a generic ICR that addresses the reporting tools.
Upon OMB approval of the ICR, EPA program offices and their assistance
agreement recipients would be able to prepare questionnaires using the
tools and submit the questionnaires and supporting materials for
expedited OMB approval.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to be six hours per assistance
agreement. This includes time for preparing the questionnaire and
related materials for OMB approval, and collecting, summarizing, and
reporting the results to EPA. The annual public reporting burden is
estimated to range from five to 10 minutes for an individual to
complete a questionnaire. There is no public recordkeeping burden for
this information collection. 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 which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action include assistance agreement recipients that perform
training and/or education and outreach.
    Estimated average annual number of assistance agreements affected:
Between 480 and 720.
    Estimated annual frequency of response: Quarterly or less often.
    Estimated annual average number of responses for each assistance
agreement: 4.
    Estimated total annual respondent burden hours: 12,024 hours.
    Estimated total annual respondent costs: $341,413. This includes an
estimated labor cost of $341,413 and $0 for capital investment or
maintenance and operational costs.

    Dated: March 11, 2008.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E8-5284 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P