[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84434-84436]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28518]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90729; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-060]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Treat as an Eligible Switch, for Purposes of IM-5900-7, an Acquisition
Company That Switches From NYSE to Nasdaq After Announcing a Business
Combination

December 18, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On September 1, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to treat as an Eligible Switch, for purposes of
IM-5900-7, an Acquisition Company that switches from the New York Stock
Exchange (``NYSE'') to Nasdaq after announcing a business combination.
On September 14, 2020, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change, which amended and replaced the proposed rule
change in its entirety. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published in the Federal Register on September 21,
2020.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal, as
modified by Amendment No. 1. This order approves the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89875 (September 15,
2020), 85 FR 59346 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Nasdaq proposes to modify IM-5900-7 to treat as an Eligible Switch
under that rule any Acquisition Company \4\ that both: (i) Switched its
listing from NYSE to list on Nasdaq under IM-5101-2 after the company
publicly announced that it entered into a binding agreement for a
business combination; and (ii) subsequently satisfies the conditions in
IM-5101-2(b) and lists on the Nasdaq Global or Global Select Markets,
by meeting all listing requirements of one of these market tiers, in
conjunction with that business combination.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ IM-5101-2 imposes additional listing requirements on a
company whose business plan is to complete an initial public
offering (``IPO'') and engage in a merger or acquisition with one or
more unidentified companies within a specific period of time
(``Acquisition Companies'').
    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 59347. As Nasdaq states
in its rule proposal, the combined company would again have to
satisfy all initial listing requirements at the time of the business
combination. See IM-5101-2(d) and (e); Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR
at 59347. If the Company does not meet the requirements for initial
listing or does not comply with one of the requirements set forth in
IM-5101-2, Nasdaq will issue a Staff Delisting Determination under
Nasdaq Rule 5810 to delist the company's securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, a company completing a business combination with a
Nasdaq-listed Acquisition Company is eligible to receive services under
IM-5900-7 when it lists, by meeting the listing requirements on the
Nasdaq Global or Global Select Market, in conjunction with a business
combination that satisfies the conditions in IM-5101-2(b).\6\ According
to Nasdaq, at this point, the Acquisition Company transitions to being
an operating company and has a similar need as other companies for
shareholder communication services, market analytic tools and market
advisory tools. Nasdaq states that, for this purpose, the Acquisition
Company is treated as an ``Eligible New Listing'' under the rule,
similar to a company listing in connection with its IPO.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See IM-5900-7(e). Specifically, within 36 months of the
effectiveness of its IPO registration statement, or such shorter
period that the company specifies in its registration statement, the
company must complete one or more business combinations having an
aggregate fair market value of at least 80% of the value of the
deposit account (excluding any deferred underwriters fees and taxes
payable on the income earned on the deposit account) at the time of
the agreement to enter into the initial combination. See IM-5101-
2(b).
    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 59347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, under IM-5900-7, Nasdaq treats a company that
switches its listing from NYSE to the Nasdaq Global or Global Select
Market as an ``Eligible Switch'' and, according to Nasdaq, offers such
companies a package of services that can be more valuable than the
package of services offered to Eligible New Listings.\8\ Nasdaq states
that, under the current rule, an Acquisition Company listed on NYSE
that switches to Nasdaq as an Acquisition Company would not receive any
services when it switches, even if it has already announced its
business combination, but would receive services as an Eligible New
Listing when it completes a business combination that satisfies the
requirements of IM-5101-2(b). However, if the company waits until it
completes a business combination and then switches to Nasdaq, the
company would receive services as an Eligible Switch.\9\ According to
Nasdaq, removing the existing incentive for an Acquisition Company to
delay switching its listing to Nasdaq until the time of its business
combination will allow Nasdaq to process both the removal of the
Acquisition Company and the simultaneous addition of the operating
company, which will help ensure that the transaction is processed
smoothly for the benefit of the company's investors.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 59347. In particular, an
Eligible Switch with a market capitalization less than $750 million
receives the same package of services for the same two year term as
an Eligible New Listing. But an Eligible Switch with a market
capitalization of $750 million or more receives services with a
higher total retail value than a comparably sized Eligible New
Listing and will receive those services for four years instead of
two years. See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 59347, n.8.
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 59347 (stating that in
this scenario the company would not be listing on Nasdaq as an
Acquisition Company).
    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 59347. Nasdaq states
that, otherwise, multiple markets would need to coordinate the
removal of the company's securities from one market, a change in the
name and symbol of the securities, and the addition of securities to
another market, which all occurs in conjunction with the closing of
the business combination (itself a significant corporate event). See
id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, Nasdaq proposes to treat as
an Eligible Switch any company that switches its listing from NYSE and
lists on Nasdaq under IM-5101-2 after the company has publicly
announced that it entered into a binding agreement for a business
combination and that subsequently satisfies the conditions in IM-5101-
2(b) and lists on the Global or Global Select Market in conjunction
with that business combination.\11\ Nasdaq states

that an Acquisition Company could only switch its listing to Nasdaq if
it satisfies all of Nasdaq's initial listing requirements. Nasdaq
further states that the combined company would again have to satisfy
all initial listing requirements at the time of the business
combination.\12\ According to Nasdaq, as under existing rules, the
Acquisition Company itself would not receive services as an Eligible
Switch under the proposed rule and the services would only be available
to the company upon completing its business combination and listing on
the Nasdaq Global or Global Select Markets pursuant to the conditions
described in IM-5900-7(e).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed IM 5900-7(a)(2). According to Nasdaq, in the
event that the Acquisition Company terminates the business
combination that was announced when it switched, it would not be
eligible to receive services as an Eligible Switch under the
proposed rule; however, if the Acquisition Company subsequently
completes a different business combination it may be eligible to
receive services as an Eligible New Listing as described in existing
IM-5900-7(e). See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 59347, n.9.
    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 59347.
    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 59347-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq represents that no other company will be required to pay
higher fees as a result of the proposed amendments and that providing
these services will have no impact on the resources available for its
regulatory programs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 59348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Nasdaq states that it proposes non-substantive technical
amendments to IM-5900-7. Specifically, Nasdaq states that it proposes
to eliminate most of the description of the history of the rule from
the rule text because it is no longer applicable to any companies.
However, Nasdaq further states that it proposes to relocate to a new
paragraph (g) and make minor non-substantive changes to the discussion
about the 2018 change to the services offered because some companies
are still eligible to receive services under the rule in effect prior
to the 2018 change. Nasdaq also proposes to renumber other paragraphs
of the rule in order to improve the rule's readability.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 59348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act.\16\ Specifically, the Commission believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the provisions of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the
Act,\17\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
Exchange members, issuers, and other persons using the Exchange's
facilities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to
protect investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \18\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f. In approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for the
Exchange to treat as an Eligible Switch, for purposes of IM-5900-7, an
Acquisition Company that (i) switched its listing from NYSE to list on
Nasdaq under IM-5101-2 after the company publicly announced that it
entered into a binding agreement for a business combination; and (ii)
subsequently satisfies the conditions in IM-5101-2(b) and lists on the
Nasdaq Global or Global Select Markets in conjunction with that
business combination. According to the Exchange, an Acquisition Company
may reconsider its listing market following the public announcement of
a business combination that is intended to satisfy the conditions in
IM-5101-2(b) in connection with its rebranding and the launch of the
operating company as a public company. Moreover, according to the
Exchange, the consideration about whether to switch markets is roughly
the same for an Acquisition Company that has publicly announced a
business combination as it is for other companies that are considered
Eligible Switches. The Exchange believes that treating the company as
an Eligible Switch would provide an incentive to the company to list on
Nasdaq.\19\ In addition, the Exchange believes that in most instances
involving an Acquisition Company that has announced a business
combination, the operating company plays a significant role in deciding
where to list the combined company. The Exchange asserts, accordingly,
it is not unfair to treat an Acquisition Company that has announced a
business combination differently from one that has not yet made such an
announcement.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 59348.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the Commission's previous order approving IM-5900-7,
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act does not require that all issuers be treated
the same; rather, the Act requires that the rules of an Exchange not
unfairly discriminate between issuers.\21\ The Commission believes that
the Exchange has reasonably justified treating an Acquisition Company
transferring its listing from NYSE under the circumstances described
above as an Eligible Switch and that it reflects the competition
between the exchanges, with the Exchange offering a more valuable
package of services for transfers of listings from a competing
exchange.\22\ The Commission further notes that such companies will be
receiving the same package of services as any other Eligible Switch and
will not be receiving any additional benefits or services by virtue of
the proposed rule change. In addition, the Commission notes that if the
Acquisition Company terminates its announced business combination, it
would not be eligible to receive services as an Eligible Switch, but
the Acquisition Company may be eligible to receive services as an
Eligible New Listing if it subsequently completes a different business
combination.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5); see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 65963 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79262, 79266 (December
21, 2011) (approving NASDAQ-2011-122) (``2011 Approval Order'')
(``The Commission believes that NASDAQ has provided a sufficient
basis for its different treatment of Eligible Switches and that this
portion of NASDAQ's proposal meets the requirements of the Act in
that it reflects competition between exchanges, with NASDAQ offering
discounts for transfers of listings from a competing exchange.'').
    \22\ See supra note 8 and accompanying text.
    \23\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that describing in the Exchange's
rules the products and services available to listed companies and their
associated values will ensure that individual listed companies,
including Acquisition Companies, are not given specially negotiated
packages of products or services to list, or remain listed, that would
raise unfair discrimination issues under the Act.\24\ The Commission
has previously found that the package of complimentary services offered
to Eligible New Listings and Eligible Switches is equitably allocated
among issuers consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and that
describing the values

of the services adds greater transparency to the Exchange's rules and
to the fees applicable to such companies.\25\ Based on the foregoing,
the Commission believes that the Exchange has provided a sufficient
basis for treating as an Eligible Switch, for purposes of IM-5900-7, an
Acquisition Company that switches from NYSE to Nasdaq after announcing
a business combination and satisfies the conditions in IM-5101-2(b) and
lists on the Nasdaq's Global or Global Select Markets by meeting all
listing requirements and that this change does not unfairly
discriminate among issuers and is therefore consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act. For similar reasons, and as the value of services
offered to an Eligible Switch is not changing, only whether certain
Acquisition Companies are treated as an Eligible Switch instead of an
Eligible Listing, the Commission believes that the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79366 (November 21,
2016), 81 FR 85663, 85665 (November 28, 2016) (approving Nasdaq-
2016-106) (``2016 Approval Order'') (citing Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 65127 (August 12, 2011), 76 FR 51449, 51452 (August 18,
2011) (approving NYSE-2011-20)). The Commission notes that the
Exchange represents that no other company will be required to pay
higher fees as a result of the proposal and that the proposal will
have no impact on the resources available for its regulatory
programs. See supra note 14 and accompanying text.
    \25\ See 2016 Order, supra note 24, 81 FR at 85665; 2011
Approval Order, supra note 21, 76 FR at 79266.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange asserts that its proposal removes an
incentive for an Acquisition Company to wait until the consummation of
a business combination to change listing exchanges if it would like to
receive the more valuable package of services, which otherwise makes it
more difficult to process the listing determinations smoothly.\26\ As
noted above, under the proposal the Acquisition Company will be treated
as an Eligible Switch only in connection with the business combination
that was announced prior to the transfer of its listing to Nasdaq.\27\
Therefore, the proposal appears to be narrowly crafted and does not
permit the company to be treated as an Eligible Switch indefinitely
should the announced business combination be terminated. Based on the
above, the Commission believes that the proposal should remove
impediments to the operation of a free and open market and protect
investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 10 and accompanying text.
    \27\ See supra note 11 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has also stated that the proposal would provide an
incentive for a company to list on Nasdaq given that companies often
reconsider their listing market at the time of a public announcement to
a business combination in connection with its rebranding and the launch
of the operating company. As noted above, the Commission also believes
that the Exchange is responding to competitive pressures in the market
for listings in making this proposal. The Exchange states in its
proposal that it faces competition in the market for listing services
and the Commission understands that the Exchange competes, in part, by
offering complimentary services to companies. Specifically, the
Exchange is offering a more valuable listing package of complementary
services to Acquisition Companies that transfer from NYSE at the time
that they announce a business combination, and later satisfy the
conditions in IM-5901-2(b) and all the initial listing requirements at
the time of the business combination to list on the Nasdaq Global or
Global Select Markets,\28\ to attract new listings. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule reflects the current
competitive environment for exchange listings among national securities
exchanges, and is appropriate and consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of
the Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ As Nasdaq states in its filing, ``[o]f course an
Acquisition Company could only switch its listing to Nasdaq if it
satisfies all of Nasdaq's initial listing requirements. In addition,
the combined company would again have to satisfy all initial listing
requirements at the time of the business combination.'' Notice,
supra note 3, 85 FR at 59347.
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission finds that it is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \30\ for the Exchange to make various technical and
conforming revisions to facilitate clarity of its Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\31\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
(SR-NASDAQ-2020-060), be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28518 Filed 12-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 DRAFT OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 3/ 23/ 05 Mr. Phillip Polyak Designated Representative Dearborn Industrial Generation P. O. Box 126 Dearborn, MI 48121 0126 Re: Additional Quality Assurance Requirements for Conditionally Approved Predictive Emissions Monitoring System at Dearborn Industrial Generation ( Facility ID ( ORISPL) 55088), Unit GTP1 Dear Mr. Polyak:

This response finalizes approval of the October 24, 2002 petition submitted under § 75.66( d) and 40 CFR Part 75, Subpart E. This petition requested approval of a NO x predictive emission monitoring system ( PEMS) at Unit GTP1 at Dearborn Industrial Generation ( DIG) in Dearborn, Michigan. Section 75.20( f) requires EPA to publish the initial certification request of an alternative monitoring system in the Federal Register and, following a public comment period of 60 days, to issue a notice of approval or disapproval. The public comment period closed on _______ with no comments received.

There is an Attachment to this response that is designed to provide easier implementation of the final requirements for Unit GTP1. The Attachment for Unit GTP1 consolidates additional quality assurance requirements from EPA's field study, and EPA's September 2, 2003 conditional approval.

The final requirements for Unit GTP1 include a more stringent PEMS sensor alarm system, and monthly, three run relative accuracy audits to be performed on the PEMS during the ozone season. EPA also requires an initial certification and recertification NO x relative accuracy test audit ( RATA) to be performed at three operating levels and an F test, correlation analysis and t test to be performed using the RATA data. Because DIG has already complied with the initial certification requirements in the original September 2, 2003 petition response, it does not need to perform another initial certification unless a new NO x PEMS monitoring system is installed. Ongoing NO x RATAs are to be performed at just the normal operating level without statistical tests. With the inclusion of the additional QA measures provided in this letter, EPA fully approves the use of the subject PEMS on Unit GTP1 at DIG.

Background In paragraph ( e) of EPA's September 2, 2003 conditional PEMS approval for Unit GTP1 at DIG, EPA reserved the right to require the owner or operator of GTP1, i. e., DIG, to use portable NO x and diluent gas ( CO 2 or O 2) analyzers ( or, as an option, to use EPA reference methods) to 2 1 " Evaluation of Portable Analyzers for Use in Quality Assuring Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems for NOx", The Cadmus Group, Inc., September 8, 2004 perform periodic assessments of the accuracy of the PEMS, if and when EPA determined that portable NO x analyzers can provide adequate PEMS accuracy checks. EPA stated that it would provide DIG with the necessary performance specifications, sampling frequency, methodology, and reporting guidance, should this become a requirement. EPA also stated that over the next few months, it would test several portable electrochemical and chemiluminescent NO x analyzers at combustion turbine sites to determine how well these analyzers work. Finally, EPA indicated that if periodic, direct checks of PEMS accuracy with portable analyzers should become a requirement, it would be implemented in such a way that the unit would be tested at different operating levels from check to check.

Since issuing the September 2, 2003 conditional PEMS approval, EPA has completed a field study of portable NO x monitors, analyzed the results, and performed a cost assessment1. For the two, low NO x emitting, natural gas fired combustion turbines tested, the accuracy of the portable analyzers was found to be comparable to that of a certified Part 75 CEMS and to EPA Reference Method 7E. The cost assessment suggests that the cost to perform monthly relative accuracy audits on a PEMS is reasonable.

In paragraph ( j) of EPA's September 2, 2003 conditional PEMS approval for Unit GTP1, EPA reserved the right to require new statistical procedures or to change the ones currently required. Since issuing the September 2, 2003 conditional PEMS approval, EPA has completed a field study of a hybrid neural network based PEMS at two gas fired combustion turbines. The study suggested that application of the Part 75, Subpart E statistics to a smaller data set when coupled with a threelevel RATA to evaluate the PEMS predictions across the PEMS " operating envelope" is a good measure of PEMS performance.

Justification for Additional Quality Assurance ( QA) Testing of PEMS A NO x PEMS is a piece of software that provides an indirect determination of NO x emissions. It can provide an accurate indication of NO x levels if it is properly developed, trained, and qualityassured Normally, a PEMS is trained over a one week ( or longer) time period and over a wide range of source operating conditions. However, even the best training regimen cannot include all possible operating conditions, e. g., upsets, sticky valves, or other unforeseen events, that can affect emissions, but are not reflected in the PEMS output.

One safeguard against this is to implement a PEMS' algorithm that identifies potentially failed sensors, or PEMS input parameters outside of the expected parameter values, by comparing each sensor to several other sensors and determining expected sensor values based on the historical sensor relationships developed during PEMS training. When such sensor values are identified, an alarm is provided and the PEMS is out of control and the maximum potential NO x emission rate must be reported until the sensor is fixed or the PEMS is retrained. Reporting standard missing data values or allowing a substitute sensor value calculated by the PEMS is not an adequate solution because the PEMS cannot determine whether the abnormal input parameter value is caused by a failed sensor or by some new region of operation not represented in the PEMS training data that results in unusually 3 2 EPA notes that these cost estimates assume that in house personnel will perform the monthly RAAs, using portable analyzers. The cost of the RAAs will be considerably higher if outside testing contractors are used.

3 " Evaluation and Field Testing of Nitrogen Oxide ( NOx) Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems ( PEMS) for Gas fired Combustion Turbines  Synthesis Report", The Cadmus Group, Inc., December 29, 2004 . high NO x levels.

An even better safeguard against unforeseen events that can affect emissions not reflected in the PEMS output is to periodically compare the PEMS output to a quality assured, direct measurement of stack emissions, e. g., by performing a RATA. However, RATAs are costly and are generally performed only once or twice a year. Therefore, other, less expensive accuracy checks should be done in between the RATAs, to provide ongoing assurance of data quality. For continuous emission monitoring systems ( CEMS), the RATAs are supplemented by daily calibration error checks and quarterly linearity checks, which use calibration gases. However, these tests cannot be done on a PEMS, because calibration gas cannot be injected into a PEMS. Therefore, some other type of periodic accuracy check suitable for a PEMS is needed to supplement the RATAs, in order to adequately quality assure the PEMS data for use in a cap and trade program. EPA believes that monthly 3 run relative accuracy audits ( RAAs) will provide the necessary additional QA for a PEMS. The results of the aforementioned EPA study have shown that for gas fired combustion turbines with NO x concentration levels of 3 ppm and higher, portable NO x and O 2 analyzers, or Method 7E are suitable for these accuracy tests.

In addition to examining the feasibility of using portable analyzers for periodic accuracy checks of PEMS, the EPA study assessed the potential cost associated with a monthly RAA requirement. EPA estimates that performing the additional monthly RAAs during the ozone season would bring the total annual cost of operating, maintaining and quality assuring a PEMS ( such as the PEMS on Unit GTP1 ) to approximately $ 24,750. This cost includes $ 3,000 annualized equipment cost for a portable analyzer plus $ 6,750 operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs associated with QA testing ( including an annual 9 run RATA performed by an outside test contractor and monthly 3 run RAAs for the 5 month ozone season performed by in house staff using a portable analyzer), and $ 15,000 PEMS O& M. This represents an increase of about $ 5,750 above the cost without the monthly RAAs.

EPA believes that the cost of the additional RAAs is reasonable. According to EPA's CEM Cost Model, the next least costly option for GTP1 ( if it loses its status as a peaking unit) to comply with subpart H of Part 75 would be NO x diluent CEMS. The total annual cost of operating and maintaining a CEMS is estimated at $ 62,700. This cost includes $ 15,000 annualized equipment cost plus $ 47,700 O& M costs ( including an annual RATA). Thus, even with the additional RAA requirement, the estimated annual cost of operating and maintaining a PEMS for Unit GTP1 would be less than half the cost associated with CEMS2.

EPA's field test data analysis3 of the first 720 hours of matched PEMS and CEMS data for Chesterfield Unit 8 and the 830 matched data pairs for Cane Island Unit 2, revealed that most 30 point subsets of paired data passed the same combination of statistical tests that all the data in each data set passed. The field test data also illustrated the importance of testing the PEMS over the range of unit operation because of the strong correlation of NO x emissions to certain unit operating 4 parameters. Based on this evaluation, abbreviated Subpart E statistical tests, in conjunction with an initial three load RATA, and ongoing QA tests, can provide a reliable indication of PEMS performance.

This final approval is appealable under Part 78 of the Acid Rain regulations. If there are any further questions or concerns about this matter, please contact John Schakenbach of my staff at 202 343 9158 or at ( schakenbach. john@ epa. gov).

Sincerely,

Sam Napolitano, Director Clean Air Markets Division cc: John Schakenbach, EPA, CAMD Louis Nichols, EPA, CAMD Constantine Blathras, EPA Region 5 Karen Kajiya Mills, MI DEQ Attachment


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46878-46879]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 117 and 507

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1164]

Determination of Status as a Qualified Facility Under the Current
Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive
Controls for Human and Animal Food Rules; Guidance for Industry;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is
announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled
``Determination of Status as a Qualified Facility Under Part 117:
Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based
Preventive Controls for Human Food and Part 507: Current Good
Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive
Controls for Food for Animals; Guidance for Industry.'' This guidance
explains our current thinking on how to determine whether a facility is
a ``qualified facility'' that is subject to modified requirements under
our rule entitled ``Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard
Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food'' (the
Preventive Controls for Human Food Rule) or under our rule entitled
``Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based
Preventive Controls for Food for Animals'' (the Preventive Controls for
Animal Food Rule). This guidance also explains our current thinking on
how a facility would submit Form FDA 3942a, attesting to its status as
a qualified facility under the Preventive Controls for Human Food Rule
and how a business would submit Form FDA 3942b, attesting to its status
as a qualified facility under the Preventive Controls for Animal Food
Rule.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on September 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-D-1164 for ``Determination of Status as a Qualified Facility
Under Part 117: Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis,
and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food and Part 507: Current
Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive
Controls for Food for Animals; Guidance for Industry.'' Received
comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted
as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff

office between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Office of Food Safety (HFS-300), Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park,
MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office
in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for electronic access to the draft guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions relating to the guidance
as it applies to human food: Jenny Scott, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (HFS-300), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus
Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For questions relating to the guidance as it applies to animal
food: Jeanette Murphy, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-200), Food
and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-
402-6246.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Determination of Status as a Qualified Facility Under Part
117: Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-
Based Preventive Controls for Human Food and Part 507: Current Good
Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive
Controls for Food for Animals; Guidance for Industry.'' We are issuing
this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation
(21 CFR 10.115). This guidance represents the current thinking of FDA
on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is
not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach
if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and
regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
    In the Federal Register of May 16, 2016 (81 FR 30219), we made
available a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Qualified Facility
Attestation Using Form FDA 3942a (for Human Food) or Form FDA 3942b
(for Animal Food)'' and gave interested parties an opportunity to
submit comments by November 14, 2016, for us to consider before
beginning work on the final version of the guidance. We received a
couple of comments on the draft guidance and have modified the final
guidance where appropriate. Changes to the guidance include: (1)
Clarification regarding recordkeeping and FDA review of records, (2)
clarification regarding how a facility can meet the definition of a
``very small business,'' (3) addition of new examples of calculations,
and (4) explanation of a simpler method for determining whether a
facility's 3-year average of food sales and food market value is below
the inflation adjusted threshold for a ``very small business.'' In
addition, editorial changes were made to improve clarity. The guidance
announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated May 16,
2016.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains information collection provisions that are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR 117.201 and 507.7 have been
approved under 0910-0854.
    The guidance also refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in
part 117 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0751. The
collections of information in part 507 have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0789.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

IV. References

    The following references are on display at the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes
in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

1. FDA 2016: Qualified Facility Attestation Using Form FDA 3942a
(for Human Food) or Form FDA 3942b (for Animal Food): Instructions
for Submitting Your Attestation. Accessible at: https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FoodFacilityRegistration/default.htm.
2. FDA 2017: Form FDA 3942a. Accessible at: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/ListFormsAlphabetically/default.htm.
3. FDA 2017: Form FDA 3942b. Accessible at: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/ListFormsAlphabetically/default.htm.

    Dated: September 11, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-20109 Filed 9-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Supporting Statement

Information Collection Request

GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Request

This Information Collection Request (ICR) is entitled “Information
Collection Activities under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’s) GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership Program,” ICR
number 2349.01.

1(b) Short Characterization

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol) is an international agreement with universal
participation aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the
production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS).  The
United States was one of the original signatories to the 1987 Montreal
Protocol. Congress then enacted into law the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (CAA), which included Title VI on Stratospheric Ozone Protection to
ensure that the United States could satisfy its obligations under the
Montreal Protocol. Title VI includes provisions that establish
restrictions on production, consumption, and reduce use and emissions of
ODS.

ODS are divided into two groups: Class I and Class II. Class I ODS
includes chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), methyl bromide and other substances
that have a high ozone-depleting potential (ODP) that have been phased
out in the United States; and Class II substances are
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which are transitional substitutes for
many Class I substances and are currently being phased out. For the HCFC
phaseout the United States is implementing the phaseout schedule on a
chemical-by-chemical basis employing a ‘‘worst-first’’ approach.
On December 15, 2009, EPA published two rules (74 FR 66412, 74 FR 66450)
that together restrict the availability and use of HCFCs (including
HCFC-22) in 2010. One rule allocates a reduced amount of allowances for
the production and import of HCFCs. The other rule bans the sale or
distribution (including import and export) of pre-charged
air-conditioning and refrigeration products and components containing
HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b. EPA’s Stratospheric Protection Division (SPD)
manages these programs in conjunction with the Title VI complementary
measures to ensure a smooth transition to alternatives that reduce
overall risk to human health and the environment. The complementary
measures include the refrigerant management program established under
Section 608, the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program
authorized by Section 612, as well as partnership programs that focus on
opportunities to assist specific industries in achieving SPD’s
regulatory goals and in going above and beyond regulatory requirements.
The GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership (hereafter referred to
as GreenChill Partnership or GreenChill) is a partnership program that
assists the supermarket industry in reducing ozone-depleting and
greenhouse gas (GHG) refrigerant emissions.

The GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership, launched November 27,
2007, is an EPA alliance with the supermarket industry to reduce its
impact on the ozone layer and climate change.  Working with EPA,
GreenChill Partners transition to non-ozone-depleting refrigerants,
reduce refrigerant charges, reduce refrigerant leaks, and promote
supermarkets’ adoption of advanced refrigeration technologies,
strategies, and practices. The GreenChill Partnership intends to promote
innovation by serving as a forum for Partners to communicate successful
ODS and GHG reduction techniques, along with helping Partners identify
and access the latest information on improvements in refrigerants,
refrigeration technology, and best environmental practices. The program
also provides companies with recognition for environmental action beyond
regulatory requirements, thus allowing the industry to build substantial
good will with consumers.  The GreenChill Partnership was developed and
is managed by SPD. This ICR is for information collection from
supermarket Partners.

In 2007, there were 34,937 supermarkets with annual sales exceeding $2
million per establishment. Smaller grocery stores, which are defined as
accruing less than $2 million in annual sales per unit, accounted for
another 13,652 establishments, and large wholesale club stores accounted
for 1,152 entities. All of these entities, from large conglomerates to
small independent store operators, represent potential GreenChill
Partners. According to a March 2009 report by the Chain Store Guide, a
market research service, the top 23 food retailers, each with more than
200 stores, held 74% of the U.S. grocery market share. An advantage of
having major chains join the GreenChill Partnership is the inclusion of
a large number of individual stores.

Most of the U.S. supermarkets use what is generally referred to as a
“direct expansion (DX) refrigeration system” to chill their
products. These systems typically use large charges of refrigerant, and
they usually have high leak rates, often in excess of 20% of their
charge per year. The majority of the supermarkets in the United States
use HCFC-22 (also known as R-22) as the primary refrigerant. Under
EPA’s implementation of the Montreal Protocol, HCFC-22 is being phased
out under the following schedule:

On January 1, 2003, EPA limited how much and who could import/produce
HCFC-22.

On January 1, 2010, production and import of virgin HCFC-22 will be
reduced by more than 75% (74 FR 66412) and the use of virgin HCFC-22
limited to servicing of equipment made before this date, for export, and
for processes resulting in transformation or destruction of the
substances. HCFC-22 amounts will be reduced each year between 2010-2014,
when another rule will be issued governing amounts of HCFC-22 for
2015-2019.

On January 1, 2020, all production and import of virgin HCFC-22 will be
banned, with exceptions for export and for processes resulting in
transformation or destruction of the substances.

EPA also restricts the import of used HCFC-22 without prior approval
from both EPA and the government representing the country of export.

Most supermarkets moving to HCFC-22 alternatives use refrigerants
consisting entirely or primarily of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HCFCs and
HFCs are both GHGs.

There are several refrigeration technology options available for
supermarkets to reduce their refrigerant charges and refrigerant
emissions. Two of the most common advanced refrigeration technologies
are distributed and secondary loop technologies. The GreenChill
Partnership has the potential to promote emissions reductions and
accelerate the phaseout of ODS in supermarket refrigeration and
air-conditioning by encouraging the use of these advanced refrigeration
technologies.

An organization’s decision to participate in EPA’s GreenChill
Partnership is completely voluntary. Partners voluntarily join
GreenChill because the Partnership is an exceptional source of
supermarket refrigerant emissions data, which gives partners the
opportunity to benchmark their emissions reductions versus their
competitors. Any company that does not want to participate in
GreenChill’s data collection process can avoid it by not signing up
for the Partnership.  Partners are free to terminate their participation
in GreenChill at any time.

Participation in the GreenChill Partnership begins with the completion
and submittal to EPA of a Partnership Agreement that provides EPA with a
corporate contact for Partnership-related activities. It is signed by a
senior official with authority to commit his or her organization to the
program and is also signed by an EPA representative. After completing
the Partnership Agreement, Partners are asked to submit a GreenChill
Stocks and Emissions Report within one year of becoming a Partner. The
form provides a list of refrigerants and requires Partners to provide
information on the stocks and emissions of each of these refrigerants in
commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances. Finally, the
GreenChill Partnership asks all Partners to fill out a Corporate
Refrigerant Management Plan with information from their respective
existing refrigerant management plans, to inform EPA of their emissions
reductions goals and plans for retrofitting old equipment and installing
new equipment.

There are a variety of environmental, economic, and synergistic benefits
to EPA’s GreenChill Partnership. Most notably, Partners can assist in
addressing global environmental impacts associated with use and
emissions of ODS and GHGs. In addition, advanced refrigeration systems
typically require smaller refrigerant charges and have lower leak rates
compared to conventional refrigeration systems, which could result in
significant savings on annual refrigerant costs.  Partners share
information with each other on new technologies, strategies, and
practices, including GreenChill pilot projects, which helps spur
innovation in the industry.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

2(a) Need and Authority for the Collection

Title VI of the Clean Air Act required EPA to phase out production and
consumption of ODS. While Class I substances have already been phased
out, Class II substances (HCFCs) are currently being phased out. The
2010 milestone in the phaseout of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b marks a major
step in the transition to non-ODS alternative refrigerants and a
strategic opportunity for the food retail industry, since companies can
simultaneously negotiate the required transition to non-ODS alternative
refrigerants and move to advanced technologies that can generate
additional benefits, such as cost savings. Because many alternative
refrigerants have high GWPs (e.g., HFCs), it is important during this
transition to consider reducing emissions of all refrigerants, not just
ODS. By promoting the use of advanced refrigeration technologies, the
GreenChill Partnership is an important component of EPA’s ODS phaseout
strategy.

EPA has developed this ICR to obtain authorization to collect
information from supermarkets participating in the GreenChill
Partnership. By participating in the program, a Partner agrees to the
terms of three information collections specified by EPA in the
Partnership Agreement:

(1)  Partners must submit the Partnership Agreement to EPA;

(2)  Partners must annually submit the Stocks and Emissions Report; and

(3)  Partners must annually submit a Corporate Refrigerant Management
Plan.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The information collected by EPA’s GreenChill Partnership is not
designed or intended to support regulatory decision-making by SPD or
other EPA offices. These data are voluntarily reported by individual EPA
GreenChill Partners, and EPA will use this information as described
below.

Partnership Agreement

EPA will use information submitted in the Partnership Agreement to
officially establish participation in EPA’s GreenChill Partnership and
list Partners on EPA’s GreenChill Partnership website. The Partnership
Agreement is intended to clearly delineate the responsibilities and
activities expected to be completed by members of the GreenChill
Partnership. Information collected in the Partnership Agreement will
also be used by EPA to establish a contact person for EPA
communications.

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

EPA will use information submitted by Partners on refrigerant stocks to
establish a base year of stocks and emissions measurements and to
quantify refrigerant inventory and emissions. Subsequent annual
completion of this report will ensure that both GreenChill Partners and
EPA are able to easily track their progress in reducing emissions of
GHGs and ODS.

Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan

The Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan, which includes information
from companies’ existing refrigerant management plans, allows Partners
to communicate to EPA the emissions reduction goals they have
established. These goals serve to focus Partner management on reduction
strategies and allow EPA to easily work with Partners to achieve a
measurable reduction in ODS and GHGs.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Nonduplication

The information to be obtained under this ICR is not collected by any
other EPA program or Federal agency. The information is not available
from other sources because it is proprietary information submitted by
industry sources.

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

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA issued a
public notice in the Federal Register (Vol. 74, No. 105) on June 3,
2009, soliciting public comments for a 60-day period.

3(c) Consultations

EPA’s GreenChill Partnership had seven pilot program Partners. These
pilot Partners were asked how long it took them to complete the
activities necessary to provide the information requested for
participation in the Partnership. The Partners listed in Table 1
provided input:

Table 1. Partners that provided input to this ICR

Supermarket	Partnership contact

Food Lion	Wayne Rosa

Giant Eagle	Cliff Timko

Hannaford Bros. Co.	Harrison Horning

Harris Teeter	Michael Shepard

Publix	Stephen Sloan

Supervalu	George Ronn

Whole Foods	Kathy Loftus

Note: In certain cases information was gained from multiple staff
members. Only the designated Partnership contact is listed above.

In addition, Van Baxter at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL), who will process some of the forms, was
asked to estimate his time to process and synthesize the information.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

The Partnership Agreement is a one-time information submittal for
organizations that wish to participate in EPA’s GreenChill
Partnership. Less frequent collection of the partner contact information
in this agreement is not feasible.

GreenChill Partners are required to submit the GreenChill Stocks and
Emissions Report at the end of their first year in the Partnership and
each year thereafter. Less frequent collection is not feasible, since
data are used to create a baseline of emissions and track Partners’
progress relative to their annual goals in reducing their release of ODS
and GHGs.

Each GreenChill Partner must submit a Corporate Refrigerant Management
Plan, which includes information from companies’ existing refrigerant
management plans, at the end of their first year of participation in the
GreenChill Partnership, and every year thereafter. Less frequent
collection is not feasible, as this form allows Partners to establish
clear emissions reductions targets and enlist the help of EPA in
achieving these targets.

3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, OMB’s guidelines, and EPA’s Information Collection Review
Handbook.

3(f) Confidentiality

The GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report is sent annually to an
independent third party, ORNL, where all submitted forms are stripped of
specific identifying information (e.g., the name of the supermarket),
aggregated into a database, and sent to EPA. EPA guarantees the
confidentiality of all information collected from participants in the
GreenChill Partnership.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

No questions of a sensitive nature or of matters usually considered
private to individuals will be asked. Sensitive questions generally deal
with race, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, medical history,
etc.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents and North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) Codes

Respondents will consist of supermarkets that partner with EPA’s
GreenChill Partnership. The NAICS code for supermarkets is 445110.

4(b) Information Requested

Once a prospective Partner reviews EPA’s GreenChill materials and
decides to join the program, the company must submit a Partnership
Agreement. By the end of the first year of entry into the Program, and
each year thereafter, each Partner must complete and submit the annual
Corporate  Stocks and Emissions Report (aggregated, not by individual
store) and the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan, which includes
information from companies’ existing refrigerant management plans.

Partnership Agreement

Program participants complete and submit two copies of a two-page
Partnership Agreement that lays out Partner and EPA responsibilities to
EPA.

(i) Data items

The reporting items include:

The name and signature of an authorized company representative

Name, title, address, county, postal code, phone number, fax number, and
e-mail address of the Partner’s designated GreenChill representative.

(ii) Respondent activities

Participants conduct the following activities in order to complete and
submit the Partnership Agreement:

Review the Partnership Agreement

Complete the Partnership Agreement and obtain the signature of a senior
official

Send the completed Partnership Agreement to EPA via fax, mail, or
online, and file a copy.

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

By the end of the first year of entry as a Partner in GreenChill and
each year thereafter, Partners must complete a Corporate Stocks and
Emissions Report.

(i) Data items

The reporting items include:

General Partner information [e.g., company name, the Partner’s
selected base year (the year in which this agreement was signed or up to
two years prior to the signing year), reporting year]

Corporate-wide refrigerant stocks by refrigerant type in commercial
refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances

Corporate-wide emissions by refrigerant type in commercial refrigeration
and air-conditioning appliances

Name and signature of an authorized company representative, and the
date.

(ii) Respondent activities

Participants conduct the following activities in order to complete and
submit the GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report:

Select the base year (first year only) and aggregate records on
refrigerant stocks and emissions

Fill out and sign the GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

Send the completed report to Van Baxter at ORNL via fax, mail, or
online, and file a copy.

Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan

The Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan, which includes information
from companies’ existing refrigerant management plans, must be filled
out within one year of GreenChill Partnership and submitted annually
thereafter.

(i) Data items

The reporting items include:

Participant information (e.g., business name)

Upcoming year’s annual emissions reduction goal (e.g., total corporate
base line emissions rate, target emissions rate, optional stretch target
goal)

Planned activities for upcoming year to retrofit existing stores, to
repair and/or prevent refrigerant leaks in existing stores, and /or
plans to install advanced refrigeration technology in newly constructed
stores.

(ii) Respondent activities

Participants conduct the following activities in order to complete and
submit the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan:

Develop an emissions reduction goal

Fill out the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan using information
from their existing refrigerant management plans

Gain corporate approval of the filled-out form

Send the filled-out form to EPA via fax, mail, or email, and file a
copy.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ( AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

EPA’s GreenChill Program will require EPA to engage in the following
activities related to the Partnership Agreement, the GreenChill Stocks
and Emissions Report, and the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan,
which includes information from companies’ existing refrigerant
management plans.

Partnership Agreement

Develop Partnership Agreement and distribute to prospective Partners

Answer questions posed by potential Partners regarding the Partnership
Agreement

Review completed agreements

Countersign the agreement and return a copy to Partner.

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

Develop the Corporate Stocks and Emissions Report form and distribute to
Partners

Annual conference call to answer questions posed by Partners regarding
annual reporting

Review completed GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Reports (done by third
party data collector for confidentiality, Van Baxter at ORNL)

Develop data tracking system

Enter data into a tracking system

Aggregate data for tracking program benefits and Partner achievements.

Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan

Answer questions posed by Partners regarding the Corporate Refrigerant
Management Plan

Review company submissions

File company submissions

Develop charts of projected emission reductions based on goals and
compare Partner results to Partner goals (beginning in the second year
of submission).

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR,
EPA uses a telephone system, personal computers, and database software.
EPA ensures the reasonableness and completeness of collected information
by reviewing each submittal. EPA plans to offer all information
collection instruments in hard copy and electronically. Electronic
submissions do not have a significant impact on respondent or Agency
burden.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

EPA currently expects that few participants in EPA’s GreenChill
Partnership might be small entities. In any event, EPA has designed its
reporting forms to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient
and accurate information. In addition, the burden associated with the
GreenChill Partnership is inherently minimized since the initial
agreement to participate is voluntary.

5(d) Collection Schedule

Organizations may submit Partnership Agreements to join the EPA’s
GreenChill Partnership at any time. Partners will also submit a
GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report and a Corporate Refrigerant
Management Plan, which includes information from companies’ existing
refrigerant management plans, within one year of joining the
Partnership. Thereafter, these reports and forms will be submitted
annually. EPA may collect other program information on a periodic basis
or as the information is submitted.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

EPA used input from pilot Partners and its experience implementing other
voluntary programs to estimate burden for respondents. EPA reviewed all
pilot Partner estimates of hours required to complete each activity. In
reviewing these estimates, EPA found nine outliers that distorted the
seven-company average burden estimates to the point of making them
unrepresentative of actual respondent activities. EPA views the
occurrence of these outlier estimates as a consequence of inadequate
communication of the nature and requirements of each activity to the
pilot Partners, rather than a reflection of the actual time required to
complete each activity. EPA calculated average burden and cost estimates
for each respondent activity, omitting the nine outliers.

Table 2 presents the burden hours and costs per respondent for the
first, second, and third years they participated in the program. The
burden hours in the second and third years are less than the first year.
The Partnership Agreement involves a one-time burden and pilot Partners
indicated the hours required to collect and provide the information for
the other two forms would be less in the second and third years due to a
better understanding of the requirements and the experience gained in
the first year. Table 3 presents the aggregate burden hours for all
respondents during each of the three years covered under this ICR. The
annual reporting burden for each Partner for this information collection
is estimated to be 18.1 hours for the first year and 11.0 hours per year
for the second and third years. The total burden hours for all
respondents are estimated as 121, 172, and 216 hours for the first,
second, and third years, respectively.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

The estimated annual respondent cost per respondent is presented in
Table 2 and for all respondents in Table 3. The estimated annual
respondent costs are discussed below.

Table 2. Individual respondent burden in Year 1 and Years 2 and 3
(labor costs, O&M costs)

Information collection activity	Manager	Technical	Clerical	Legal
Consultant	Total hours	Labor costs 	Annual O&M costs

	Hours and costs per respondent per submission – Year 1

Partnership Agreement

Review the Partnership Agreement	1.6	0.0	0.3	1.3	0.0	3.1	$295.53	$0.00

Complete the Partnership Agreement and obtain signature of senior
official	1.5	0.0	0.1	0.2	0.1	1.8	$175.81	$0.00

Send the completed Partnership Agreement to EPA via fax, mail, or
online, and file a copy	0.1	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.4	$15.84	$5.57

Subtotal	3.1	0.0	0.6	1.5	0.1	5.3	$487.19	$5.57

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

Select base year and aggregate records on refrigerant stocks and
emissions	1.2	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.9	2.6	$186.47	$0.00

Fill out and sign GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report	0.9	0.1	0.4	0.0
0.0	1.5	$109.29	$0.00

Send the completed GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report to Van Baxter
at ORNL via fax, mail, or online, and file a copy	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
0.4	$25.67	$2.86

Subtotal	2.2	0.5	0.6	0.0	0.9	4.4	$321.42	$2.86

Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan

Develop an emissions reduction goal	2.4	0.8	0.5	0.0	0.0	3.8	$297.23
$0.00

Fill out Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan	1.9	0.6	0.6	0.0	0.0	3.1
$235.50	$0.00

Gain corporate approval of the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan	1.0
0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	1.3	$122.93	$0.00

Send the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan to EPA via fax, mail, or
online, and file a copy	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.4	$25.67	$2.00

Subtotal	5.5	1.4	1.2	0.2	0.2	8.4	$681.33	$2.00

Total	10.8	2.0	2.4	1.7	1.2	18.1	$1,489.93	$10.43

Notes: There are no capital start-up costs associated with this
information collection. Total values may not sum due to rounding.

Table 2. Individual respondent burden in Year 1 and Years 2 and 3 (labor
costs, O&M costs) (cont.)

Information collection activity	Manager	Technical	Clerical	Legal
Consultant	Total hours	Labor costs 	Annual O&M costs

	Hours and costs per respondent per submission – Years 2 and 3

Partnership Agreement

Review the Partnership Agreement	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00	$0.00

Complete the Partnership Agreement and obtain signature of senior
official	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00	$0.00

Send the completed Partnership Agreement to EPA via fax, mail, or
online, and file a copy	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00	$0.00

Subtotal	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00	$0.00

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

Select base year and aggregate records on refrigerant stocks and
emissions	1.1	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.7	2.3	$172.75	$0.00

Fill out and sign GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report	0.7	0.1	0.3	0.0
0.0	1.1	$87.83	$0.00

Send the completed GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report to Van Baxter
at ORNL via fax, mail, or online, and file a copy	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
0.4	$25.67	$2.86

Subtotal	2.0	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.8	3.8	$286.25	$2.86

Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan

Develop an emissions reduction goal	1.8	0.6	0.3	0.0	0.0	2.6	$211.19
$0.00

Fill out Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan	1.8	0.6	0.6	0.0	0.0	3.0
$225.37	$0.00

Gain corporate approval of the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan	1.0
0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	1.3	$122.93	$0.00

Send the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan to EPA via fax, mail, or
online, and file a copy	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.4	$25.67	$2.00

Subtotal	4.7	1.2	0.9	0.2	0.2	7.2	$585.15	$2.00

Total	6.7	1.7	1.4	0.2	0.9	11.0	$871.40	$4.86

Notes: There are no capital start-up costs associated with this
information collection. Total values may not sum due to rounding.

Table 3. Total respondent burden in Years 1-3 (hours, labor costs)

Information collection activity	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3

	Total hours	Total

cost	Total hours	Total

cost	Total hours	Total

cost

Partnership Agreement

Review the Partnership Agreement	12.4	$1,182.13	12.4	$1,182.13	12.4
$1,182.13

Complete the Partnership Agreement and obtain signature of senior
official	7.3	$703.23	7.3	$703.23	7.3	$703.23

Send the completed Partnership Agreement to EPA via fax, mail, or
online, and file a copy	1.4	$85.66	1.4	$85.66	1.4	$85.66

Subtotal	21.1	$1,971.03	21.1	$1,971.03	21.1	$1,971.03

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

Select base year and aggregate records on refrigerant stocks and
emissions	21.1	$1,554.71	31.3	$2,300.57	40.6	$2,991.55

Fill out and sign GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report	10.3	$790.50
16.1	$1,227.64	20.7	$1,578.97

Send the completed GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report to Van Baxter
at ORNL via fax, mail, or online, and file a copy	3.2	$256.75	4.6
$370.86	6.1	$484.98

Subtotal	34.6	$2,601.96	52.0	$3,899.07	67.4	$5,055.50

Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan

Develop an emissions reduction goal	23.3	$1,900.69	38.3	$3,089.63	48.6
$3,934.38

Fill out Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan	27.5	$2,119.46	38.8
$2,970.31	50.6	$3,871.80

Gain corporate approval of the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan
11.6	$1,106.33	16.8	$1,598.03	22.0	$2,089.73

Send the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan to EPA via fax, mail, or
online, and file a copy	3.2	$249.04	4.6	$359.72	6.1	$470.40

Subtotal	65.5	$5,375.51	98.4	$8,017.70	127.2	$10,366.31

Total	121.2	$9,948.50	171.6	$13,887.79	215.7	$17,392.84

Notes: Total values may not sum due to rounding. Four new partners are
assumed per year over the three-year period.

Estimating Labor Costs

The labor rates used to determine the estimated costs to respondents are
based on the hourly wage rates published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics publications on employment and earnings. Rates include the
cost of overhead and fringe benefits. EPA estimated an average
respondent hourly labor rate (including a multiplier of 1.6 for fringe
benefits) as follows:

Manager: $101.25

Technical: $46.37

Clerical: $27.82

Legal: $101.26

Consultant: $54.11.

Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

The Partners participating in the GreenChill Partnership are not
required to incur any capital costs under the Partnership. The Partners
normally track their program data as a standard business practice. They
are also not required to incur any notable O&M costs since EPA will
encourage them to submit materials electronically and also retain
materials in electronic format to conserve paper. Estimates of O&M costs
reported by pilot Partners were minimal copying, faxing, and mailing
costs ($10.43 for the first year and $4.86 per year for the second and
third years per Partner).

Table 4 provides the net present value of the total respondent cost and
annualized respondent costs over the three years using 3% and 7%
discount rates. The net present value of total cost is $39,826 with an
average annualized cost of $13,670 using a 3% discount rate and $38,119
with an average annualized cost of $13,575 using a 7% discount rate.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

EPA used its experience implementing the GreenChill Partnership and
other voluntary programs to develop burden estimates for Agency staff.
Table 5 presents the Agency burden hours and costs per respondent in the
first year as well as for the subsequent two years. Table 6 presents
one-time Agency costs (such as forms and database development and
Partnership conference calls). The hourly labor rates used to determine
the estimated costs to the Agency are consistent with annual labor rates
published in the Federal Register and are based on the 2008 General
Schedule (GS) pay schedule available from the Office of Personnel
Management. To derive

Table 4. Total respondent burden in Years 1-3 (net present value and
annualized cost, 3% and 7% discount rate)

Information collection activity	Discount rate 3%	Discount rate 7%

	Net present value of total cost

(3 years, 2008$)	Annualized cost per year

(2008$)	Net present value of total cost

(3 years, 2008$)	Annualized cost per year

(2008$)

Partnership Agreement

Review the Partnership Agreement	$3,444.11	$1,182.13	$3,319.45	$1,182.13

Complete the Partnership Agreement and obtain signature of senior
official	$2,048.84	$703.23	$1,974.68	$703.23

Send the completed Partnership Agreement to EPA via fax, mail, or
online, and file a copy	$249.57	$85.66	$240.54	$85.66

Subtotal	$5,742.52	$1,971.03	$5,534.68	$1,971.03

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

Select base year and aggregate records on refrigerant stocks and
emissions	$6,608.09	$2,268.12	$6,317.71	$2,249.88

Fill out and sign GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report	$3,470.71
$1,191.26	$3,316.96	$1,181.25

Send the completed GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report to Van Baxter
at ORNL via fax, mail, or online, and file a copy	$1,073.95	$368.62
$1,026.95	$365.72

Subtotal	$11,152.76	$3,828.00	$10,661.62	$3,796.85

Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan

Develop an emissions reduction goal	$8,608.87	$2,954.85	$8,224.64
$2,928.98

Fill out Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan	$8,652.80	$2,969.93
$8,277.23	$2,947.71

Gain corporate approval of the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan
$4,627.58	$1,588.34	$4,425.07	$1,575.87

Send the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan to EPA via fax, mail, or
online, and file a copy	$1,041.68	$357.54	$996.10	$354.73

Subtotal	$22,930.93	$7,870.66	$21,923.03	$7,807.30

Total	$39,826.21	$13,669.69	$38,119.32	$13,575.17

Notes: Total values may not sum due to rounding. Four new partners are
assumed per year over the three-year period.

– Year 1

Partnership Agreement

	Answer questions posed by potential Partners regarding the Partnership
Agreement	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.3	$15.21	$0.00

Review completed Partnership Agreement, record/enter information into a
database and EPA’s GreenChill Program Web site 	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.3
$15.21	$0.00

Sign Partnership Agreement and return to partner	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3
$20.74	$1.00

Subtotal	0.3	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.8	$51.15	$1.00

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

	Review completed GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report 	0.0	16.0	0.0
0.0	16.0	$973.14	$0.00

Enter data in a tracking system	0.0	8.0	0.0	0.0	8.0	$486.57	$0.00

Subtotal	0.0	24.0	0.0	0.0	24.0	$1,459.72	$0.00

Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan

	Answer questions posed by Partner regarding the Corporate Refrigerant
Management Plan	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	$15.21	$0.00

Review company submission	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	$15.21	$0.00

File company submission	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	$15.21	$0.00

Develop charts of projected emission reductions based on goals and
compare Partner results to Partner goals (beginning in the second year
of submission)	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	$15.21	$0.00

Subtotal	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$60.82	$0.00

Total	0.3	25.5	0.0	0.0	24.8	$1,571.69	$1.00

Notes: There are no capital start-up costs associated with this
information collection. Hours for Van Baxter at ORNL are included in the
Technical Staff labor category. Total values may not sum due to
rounding.

– Years 2 and 3

Partnership Agreement

	Answer questions posed by potential Partners regarding the Partnership
Agreement	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00	$0.00

Review completed Partnership Agreement, record/enter information into a
database and EPA’s GreenChill Program Web site	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
$0.00	$0.00

Sign Partnership Agreement and return to partner	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
$0.00	$0.00

Subtotal	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00	$0.00

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

	Review completed GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report 	0.0	12.0	0.0
0.0	12.0	$729.86	$0.00

Enter data in a tracking system	0.0	6.0	0.0	0.0	6.0	$364.93	$0.00

Subtotal	0.0	18.0	0.0	0.0	18.0	$1,094.79	$0.00

Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan

	Answer questions posed by Partner regarding the Corporate Refrigerant
Management Plan	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00	$0.00

Review company submission	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.3	$15.21	$0.00

File company submission	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.3	$15.21	$0.00

Develop charts of projected emission reductions based on goals and
compare Partner results to Partner goals (beginning in the second year
of submission)	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.5	$30.41	$0.00

Subtotal	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	$60.82	$0.00

Total	0.0	19.0	0.0	0.0	19.0	$1,155.61	$0.00

Notes: There are no capital start-up costs associated with this
information collection. Hours for Van Baxter at ORNL are included in the
Technical Staff labor category. Total values may not sum due to
rounding.

Table 6. Agency one time burdens in Year 1, and Years 2 and 3 (hours and
costs per respondent per submission)

Information collection activity	Manager	Technical	Clerical	Legal	Total
hours	Labor

costs	Annual O&M costs

	Hours and costs per respondent per submission – Year 1

Partnership Agreement

	Develop Partnership Agreement and distribute to Partners	0.0	15.0	0.0
3.0	18.0	$1,168.72	$0.00

Subtotal	0.0	15.0	0.0	3.0	18.0	$1,168.72	$0.00

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

	Develop GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report and distribute to
Partners	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0	2.0	$121.64	$0.00

Annual conference call to answer questions posed by Partners regarding
annual reporting	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.5	$30.41	$0.00

Develop data tracking system	0.0	80.0	0.0	0.0	80.0	$4,865.72	$0.00

Aggregate data for tracking program benefits and Partner achievements
0.0	12.0	0.0	0.0	12.0	$729.86	$0.00

Subtotal	0.0	94.5	0.0	0.0	94.5	$5,747.64	$0.00

Total	0.0	109.5	0.0	3.0	112.5	$6,916.35	$0.00

	Hours and costs per respondent per submission – Years 2 and 3

Partnership Agreement

	Develop Partnership Agreement and distribute to Partners	0.0	0.0	0.0
0.0	0.0	$0.00	$0.00

Subtotal	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00	$0.00

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

	Develop GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report and distribute to
Partners	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00	$0.00

Annual conference call to answer questions posed by Partners regarding
annual reporting	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.5	$30.41	$0.00

Develop data tracking system	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	$0.00	$0.00

Aggregate data for tracking program benefits and Partner achievements
0.0	12.0	0.0	0.0	12.0	$729.86	$0.00

Subtotal	0.0	12.5	0.0	0.0	12.5	$760.27	$0.00

Total	0.0	12.5	0.0	0.0	12.5	$760.27	$0.00

Notes: There are no capital start-up costs associated with this
information collection. Hours for Van Baxter at ORNL are included in the
Technical Staff labor category. There are no “one-time” costs
associated with the Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan. Total values
may not sum due to rounding.

hourly estimates, EPA divided annual compensation by 2,080 ( the number
of hours in the Federal work year. EPA then multiplied hourly rates by
the standard government fringe factor of 1.6. EPA estimates an average
hourly labor cost as follows:

Manager: $82.95 (based on GS Level 14 Step 4)

Technical: $60.82 (based on GS Level 12 Step 5)

Clerical: $24.42 (based on GS Level 5 Step 1)

Legal: $85.46 (based on GS Level 14 Step 5).

Since EPA anticipates communicating with Partners primarily
electronically rather than mailing paper, we have included minimal
photocopying and postage costs.

Table 7 presents total Agency burden and costs during each of the three
years covered under this ICR. The total Agency burden hours are
estimated as 287, 287, and 363 for the first, second, and third years,
respectively. Table 8 presents the net present value of the total cost
and annualized costs using a 3% and 7% discount rate. The net present
value of total Agency cost is $55,275 with an average annualized cost of
$18,972 using a 3% discount rate and $53,115 with an average annualized
cost of $18,916 using a 7% discount rate.

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

The universe of each respondent activity varies depending upon the
specific activity. The respondent universe for each information
collection activity associated with EPA GreenChill Partnership Program
is presented and explained separately below.

Partnership Agreement

EPA estimates that four supermarkets will join the program each year.
EPA conducts two major outreach events a year that appear to result in
two new Partners per event. As shown in Table 3, the annual total
respondent burden for this activity is 21 hours and $1,971.

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

EPA anticipates nine submissions in the first year of this ICR from
current Partners, and 13 and 17 submissions in the second and third
years, based on adding four new Partners a year. As shown in Tables 3
and 4, the annual burden hours for this activity are 35, 52, and 67
hours for the first, second, and third years, with an average annualized
cost of $3,828 using a 3% discount rate and $3,797 using a 7% discount
rate.

Table 7. Total Agency burden in Years 1-3 (hours, labor costs)

Information collection activity	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3

	Total hours	Total

cost	Total hours	Total

cost	Total hours	Total

cost

Partnership Agreement

Develop Partnership Agreement and distribute to Partners 	18.0	$4,674.87
0.0	$0.00	0.0	$0.00

Answer questions posed by potential Partners regarding the Partnership
Agreement	1.0	$60.82	1.0	$60.82	1.0	$60.82

Review completed Partnership Agreements, record/enter information into a
database and EPA’s GreenChill Program Web site	1.0	$60.82	1.0	$60.82
1.0	$60.82

Sign agreement and return to partner	1.0	$86.95	1.0	$86.95	1.0	$86.95

Subtotal	21.0	$4,883.46	3.0	$208.59	3.0	$208.59

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

Develop GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report and distribute to
Partners	2.0	$121.64	0.0	$0.00	0.0	$0.00

Annual conference call to answer questions posed by Partners regarding
annual reporting 	0.5	$30.41	0.5	$30.41	0.5	$30.41

Review completed GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Reports 	108.0
$6,568.73	172.0	$10,461.30	220.0	$13,380.74

Develop data tracking system 	80.0	$4,865.72	0.0	$0.00	0.0	$0.00

Enter data in a tracking system	54.0	$3,284.36	86.0	$5,230.65	110.0
$6,690.37

Aggregate data for tracking program benefits and Partner achievements
12.0	$729.86	12.0	$729.86	12.0	$729.86

Subtotal	256.5	$15,600.72	270.5	$16,452.23	342.5	$20,831.38

Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan

Answer questions posed by Partners regarding the Corporate Refrigerant
Management Plan	0.0	$0.00	1.0	$60.82	1.0	$60.82

Review company submissions	2.3	$136.85	3.3	$197.67	4.3	$258.49

File company submissions	2.3	$136.85	3.3	$197.67	4.3	$258.49

Develop charts of projected emission reductions based on goals and
compare Partner results to Partner goals (beginning in the second year
of submission)	4.5	$273.70	5.5	$334.52	7.5	$456.16

Subtotal	9.0	$547.39	13.0	$790.68	17.0	$1,033.97

Total	286.5	$17,525.43	286.5	$17,451.50	362.5	$22,073.94

Notes: Total values may not sum due to rounding. Four new partners are
assumed per year over the three-year period.

Table 8. Total Agency burden in Years 1-3 (net present value and
annualized cost, 3% and 7% discount rate)

Information collection activity	Discount rate 3%	Discount rate 7%

	Net present value of total cost

(3 years, 2008$)	Annualized cost per year

(2008$)	Net present value of total cost

(3 years, 2008$)	Annualized cost per year

(2008$)

Partnership Agreement

Develop Partnership Agreement and distribute to Partners 	$1,168.72
$401.14	$1,168.72	$416.21

Answer questions posed by potential Partners regarding the Partnership
Agreement	$177.20	$60.82	$170.79	$60.82

Review completed Partnership Agreements, record/enter information into a
database and EPA’s GreenChill Program Web site	$177.20	$60.82	$170.79
$60.82

Sign agreement and return to partner	$253.33	$86.95	$244.16	$86.95

Subtotal	$1,776.45	$609.74	$1,754.45	$624.80

GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report

Develop GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Report and distribute to
Partners	$121.64	$41.75	$121.64	$43.32

Annual conference call to answer questions posed by Partners regarding
annual reporting 	$88.60	$30.41	$85.39	$30.41

Review completed GreenChill Stocks and Emissions Reports 	$29,337.96
$10,069.77	$28,032.90	$9,983.16

Develop data tracking system 	$4,865.72	$1,670.08	$4,865.72	$1,732.80

Enter data in a tracking system	$14,668.98	$5,034.88	$14,016.45
$4,991.58

Aggregate data for tracking program benefits and Partner achievements
$2,126.42	$729.86	$2,049.46	$729.86

Subtotal	$51,209.33	$17,576.75	$49,171.57	$17,511.13

Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan

Answer questions posed by Partners regarding the Corporate Refrigerant
Management Plan	$116.38	$39.95	$109.97	$39.16

Review company submissions	$572.41	$196.47	$547.36	$194.93

File company submissions	$572.41	$196.47	$547.36	$194.93

Develop charts of projected emission reductions based on goals and
compare Partner results to Partner goals (beginning in the second year
of submission)	$1,028.45	$353.00	$984.76	$350.70

Subtotal	$2,289.66	$785.89	$2,189.45	$779.71

Total	$55,275.44	$18,972.37	$53,115.47	$18,915.64

Notes: Total values may not sum due to rounding. Four new partners are
assumed per year over the three-year period.

Corporate Refrigerant Management Plan

EPA anticipates nine submissions in the first year of this ICR from
current Partners, and 13 and 17 submissions in the second and third
years, based on adding four new Partners a year. As shown in Tables 3
and 4, the annual burden hours for this activity are 66, 98, and 127
hours for the first, second, and third years, with an average annualized
cost of $7,871 using a 3% discount rate and $7,807 using a 7% discount
rate.

Total Burden and Costs

Table 3 shows the aggregate annual respondent burden and costs for the
information collection activities associates with EPA’s GreenChill
Partnership. Total estimated respondent burden hours are 121, 172, and
216 for the first, second, and third years, totaling 508 hours over the
three years. As shown in Table 4, the net present value of total cost is
$39,826 with an average annualized cost of $13,670 using a 3% discount
rate and $38,119 with an average annualized cost of $13,575 using a 7%
discount rate.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables

Tables 9 and 10 summarize the total estimated annual burden hours and
costs for respondents and for the Agency. Total estimated respondent
burden hours are 121, 172, and 216 for the first, second, and third
years, totaling 508 hours over the three years. The net present value of
total cost is $39,826 with an average annualized cost of $13,670 using a
3% discount rate and $38,119 with an average annualized cost of $13,575
using a 7% discount rate. Total estimated Agency burden hours are 287,
287, and 363 for the first, second, and third years, totaling 936 hours
over the three years. The net present value of total Agency cost is
$55,275 with an average annualized cost of $18,972 using a 3% discount
rate and $53,115 with an average annualized cost of $18,916 using a 7%
discount rate. Total burden for all information collection activities
under the GreenChill Partnership for the three years amounts to 408,
458, and 578 hours for the first, second, and third years, resulting in
an aggregate combined total of 1,444 hours with a net present value of
total cost of $95,102 with an average annualized cost of $32,642 using a
3% discount rate and $91,235 with an average annualized cost of $32,491
using a 7% discount rate.

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

This is the first ICR for the GreenChill Partnership.

Table 9. Total respondent and Agency bottom line burden (hours, labor
costs)

All information collection activities	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3

	Total hours	Total

cost	Total hours	Total

cost	Total hours	Total

cost

Respondent 	121.2	$9,948.50	171.6	$13,887.79	215.7	$17,392.84

Agency	286.5	$17,525.43	286.5	$17,451.50	362.5	$22,073.94

Total	407.7	$27,473.93	458.1	$31,339.29	578.2	$39,466.78

Notes: Total values may not sum due to rounding. Four new partners are
assumed per year over the three-year period.

Table 10. Total bottom line burden (net present value and annualized
cost, 3% and 7% discount rate)

All information collection activities	Discount rate 3%	Discount rate 7%

	Net present value of total cost

(3 years, 2008$)	Annualized cost per year

(2008$)	Net present value of total cost

(3 years, 2008$)	Annualized cost per year

(2008 $)

Respondent 	$39,826.21	$13,669.69	$38,119.32	$13,575.17

Agency	$55,275.44	$18,972.37	$53,115.47	$18,915.64

Total	$95,101.65	$32,642.06	$91,234.80	$32,490.81

Notes: Total values may not sum due to rounding. Four new partners are
assumed per year over the three-year period.

6(g) Burden Statement

The annual reporting burden for each Partner for this information
collection is estimated to be 18.1 hours for the first year and 11.0
hours per year for the second and third years. 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 forms; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

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-OAR-2008-0655, which is available for online viewing at
HYPERLINK "www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in person
viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is
available at   HYPERLINK "www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov .
This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When
in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number
identified above. Also, comments can be sent to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for
EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0655 and
OMB Control Number 2060-New in any correspondence.

 There are limited exceptions from the U.S. Class I ODS phaseout for
critical and essential uses as approved by the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol.

. ODS refrigerants currently in use and their alternatives are also
potent GHGs.

. Food Marketing Institute. 2008. Key Facts: Number of Stores.
Available:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.fmi.org/facts_figs/keyfacts/?fuseaction=stores"
http://www.fmi.org/facts_figs/keyfacts/?fuseaction = stores . Accessed
5/28/2009.

. Chain Store Guide. 2009. Grocery Industry Market Share Industry
Summary. Available:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.csgis.com/static_content/pdf/GROCES09.pdf"
http://www.csgis.com/static_content/pdf/GROCES09.pdf . Accessed May 28,
2009.

. Newly produced, not “used” refrigerant.

. It is standard practice that food retailers have corporate refrigerant
management plans which guide their decisions on when and how to upgrade
or replace their existing refrigeration equipment. These plans are often
formalized as official company strategies, but can also be a set of
informal practices the company’s employees customarily follow.
GreenChill Partners are not expected to develop new plans for managing
refrigerants; they will, however, be expected to describe their formal
or informal plans to EPA.

.   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_445100.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_445100.htm ;   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_541100.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_541100.htm ;   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_541600.htm#b11-0000"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_541600.htm#b11-0000 . Accessed
5/28/2009.

. Salary Table 2008-DCB Incorporating the 2.50% General Schedule
Increase and a Locality Payment of 20.89% for the Locality Pay Area of
Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA. 2008. Available:
  HYPERLINK "http://www.fedjobs.com/pay/washington.html"
http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/html/dcb.asp . Accessed 6/5/2009.

. Note that numbers do not add correctly due to rounding.

. Ibid.

. Ibid.

January 6, 2010

-   PAGE  2  -

-   PAGE  14  -

-   PAGE  15  -

-   PAGE  19  -

-   PAGE  20  -

-   PAGE  22  -

-   PAGE  24  -