[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51090-51093]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18447]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2016-3872; Special Conditions No. 25-629-SC]

Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. Model EMB-545 and EMB-550
airplanes, Synthetic Vision System and Enhanced Flight Vision System on
Head-Up Display

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A.
(Embraer) Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes. These airplanes will
have a novel or unusual design feature associated with a vision system
that displays video imagery on the head-up display. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Embraer S.A. on August 3, 2016. We
must receive your comments by September 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-3872
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow

the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale Dunford, FAA, Airplane and
Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
airplane.
    In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been
subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with
no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good
cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On October 9, 2014, Embraer applied for a change to Type
Certificate No. TC00062IB for a synthetic vision system (SVS) and
enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) on a head-up display (HUD) in
Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes. These airplanes are business jets
capable of accommodating up to 9 passengers (EMB-545) or 12 passengers
(EMB-550).

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Embraer must show that the Model EMB-545 and EMB-550
airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of
the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. TC00062IB, or the
applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the
change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. The
regulations listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as
the ``original type certification basis.'' In addition, the
certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or
later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to
these special conditions.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB-545 and EMB-550
airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special
conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, Embraer Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes must comply
with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34,
and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Embraer Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes will incorporate
the following novel or unusual design feature: an enhanced-flight
vision system and synthetic vision system that display video imagery on
a head-up display.

Discussion

    Video display on the HUD constitutes new and unusual technology for
which the FAA has no certification criteria. Section 25.773 does not
permit visual distortions and reflections in the pilot's view out the
airplane windshield that could interfere with the pilot's normal
duties, and was not written in anticipation of such technology. Special
conditions are therefore issued as prescribed under the provisions of
Sec.  21.16.
    For many years the FAA has approved, on transport-category
airplanes, the use of HUD that display flight symbols without a
significant visual obstruction of the outside view. When the FAA began
to evaluate the display of enhanced vision-system (EVS) imagery on the
HUD, significant potential to obscure the outside view became apparent,
contrary to the requirements of 14 CFR 25.773. This rule does not
permit distortions and reflections in the pilot-compartment view,
through the airplane windshield, that interferes with normal duties,
and the rule was not written in anticipation of such technology. The
video image potentially interferes with the pilot's ability to see the
natural scene in the center of the forward field of view. Therefore,
the FAA issued special conditions for such HUD/EVS installations to
ensure that the level of safety required by Sec.  25.773 would be met
even when the image might partially obscure the outside view. While
many of the characteristics of EVS and SVS video differ in some ways,
they have one thing in common: the potential for interference with the

outside view through the airplane windshield.
    Although the pilot may be able to see around and through small,
individual, stroke-written symbols on the HUD, the pilot may not be
able to see around or through the image that fills the display without
some interference of the outside view. Nevertheless, the vision-system
video may be capable of meeting the required level of safety when
considering the combined view of the image and the outside scene
visible to the pilot through the image. It is essential that the pilot
can use this combination of image and natural view of the outside scene
as safely and effectively as the pilot-compartment view currently
available without the vision-system image.
    Because Sec.  25.773 does not provide for any alternatives or
considerations for such a new and novel system, the FAA establishes
safety requirements that assure an equivalent level of safety and
effectiveness of the pilot-compartment view as intended by that rule.
The purpose of these special conditions is to provide the unique pilot-
compartment-view requirements for the EFVS/SVS installation.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Embraer Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes. Should Embraer apply at a
later date for a change to the type certificate to include another
model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these
special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has
determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and
impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special
conditions upon publication in the Federal Register.
    The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to
submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior
opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions apply to all Synthetic
Vision System (SVS) and Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) on Head-Up
Display (HUD) installations on the Embraer Model EMB-545 and EMB-550
airplanes in lieu of the requirements of Sec.  25.773 at Amendment 25-
129:
    1. The synthetic vision system (SVS) or enhanced flight vision
system (EFVS) imagery on the head-up display (HUD) must not degrade the
safety of flight or interfere with the effective use of outside visual
references for required pilot tasks during any phase of flight in which
it is to be used.
    2. To avoid unacceptable interference with the safe and effective
use of the pilot-compartment view, the SVS or EFVS device must meet the
following requirements:
    a. The SVS or EFVS design must minimize unacceptable display
characteristics or artifacts (e.g. noise, ``burlap'' overlay, running
water droplets, terrain shadowing against a dark background) that
obscure the desired image of the scene, impair the pilot's ability to
detect and identify visual references, mask flight hazards, distract
the pilot, or otherwise degrade task performance or safety.
    b. Control of SVS or EFVS image-display brightness must be
sufficiently effective in dynamically changing background (ambient)
lighting conditions to avoid pilot distraction, impairment of the
display that would distract the pilot, impairing the pilot's ability to
detect and identify visual references, masking of flight hazards, or
otherwise degrading task performance or safety. If automatic control
for image brightness is not provided, it must be shown that a single
manual setting is satisfactory for the range of lighting conditions
encountered during a time-critical, high-workload phase of flight
(e.g., low-visibility instrument approach).
    c. A readily accessible control must be provided that permits the
pilot to immediately deactivate and reactivate display of the SVS or
EFVS image on demand, without removing the pilot's hands from the
primary flight controls (yoke or equivalent) or thrust control.
    d. The SVS or EFVS image on the HUD must not impair the pilot's use
of guidance information, or degrade the presentation and pilot
awareness of essential flight information displayed on the HUD, such as
alerts, airspeed, attitude, altitude and direction, approach guidance,
wind-shear guidance, traffic-alert and collision-avoidance system
(TCAS) resolution advisories, or unusual attitude recovery cues.
    e. The SVS or EFVS image and the HUD symbols, which are spatially
referenced to the pitch scale, outside view, and image, must be scaled
and aligned (i.e., conformal) to the external scene. In addition, the
SVS or EFVS image and the HUD symbols--when considered singly or in
combination--must not be misleading, cause pilot confusion, or increase
workload. Airplane attitudes or cross-wind conditions may cause certain
symbols (e.g., the zero-pitch line or flight-path vector) to reach
field-of-view limits, such that they cannot be positioned conformally
with the image and external scene. In such cases, these symbols may be
displayed, but with an altered appearance that makes the pilot aware
that they are no longer displayed conformally (for example,
``ghosting''). The combined use of symbology and runway image may not
be used for path monitoring when path symbology is no longer conformal.
    f. A HUD system installed to display SVS or EFVS images must, if
previously certified, continue to meet all of the requirements of the
original approval.
    3. The display of the SVS or EFVS image must not degrade the safety
and performance of the pilot tasks associated with the use of the
pilot-compartment view. Pilot tasks that must not be degraded by the
SVS or EFVS image include:
    a. Detection, accurate identification, and maneuvering, as
necessary, to avoid traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other hazards of
flight.
    b. Accurate identification and utilization of visual references
required for every task relevant to the phase of flight.
    4. Appropriate limitations must be stated in the operating
limitations section of the airplane flight manual to prohibit the use
of the SVS or EFVS for functions that have not been found to be
acceptable.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 27, 2016.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-18447 Filed 8-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P`


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		January 29, 2010

SUBJECT:	Control Costs for Existing Stationary CI RICE

FROM:	Bradley Nelson, EC/R, Inc.

TO:		Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

1.0	PURPOSE

	The purpose of this memorandum is to present information on the costs
of control technology options for reducing hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) emissions from stationary compression ignition (CI) reciprocating
internal combustion engines (RICE).  These estimates will be used for
the above-the-floor maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
analysis and generally available control technology (GACT) regulatory
alternatives for RICE at major and area sources.  This memorandum
presents the cost of retrofitting control technology on existing
engines.

2.0	INTRODUCTION

	EPA has determined that diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC), catalyzed
diesel particulate filters (CDPF), closed crankcase ventilation (CCV)
and open crankcase ventilation (OCV) are applicable controls for HAP
reduction from stationary CI RICE.  To determine the capital and annual
costs for these control technologies, equipment cost information was
obtained from a cost study performed by the California (CA) Air
Resources Board (ARB) and cost data obtained from vendors.  The
annualized cost and capital cost equations were used to estimate the
national impacts of controlling emissions from existing stationary CI
engines.   3.0	METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING COST EQUATIONS

	The following section describes the methodology used to derive the
capital and annual costs for each of these control technologies.   The
capital and annual costs were determined using the costing methodology
in the EPA Control Cost Manual.  A summary of the methodologies,
equations, and assumptions used to estimate the capital and annual cost
are described in the following sections.

3.1 	Total Capital Costs

	The total capital cost includes the direct and indirect costs of
purchasing and installing the control equipment.  The direct cost
includes the cost of purchasing the equipment and instrumentation, cost
of shipping, and the cost of installing the control equipment.  The
indirect cost includes the costs for engineering, contractor fees,
testing costs, and also includes costs for contingencies, such as
additional modifications, or delays in startup.  The total capital cost
equation can be summarized as follows;

Total Capital Cost (TCC) = Direct Costs (DC) + Indirect Costs (IC)

The direct costs include the costs of purchasing and installing the
control equipment and can be summarized using the following equation;

DC = Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) + Direct Installation Costs (DIC).

A summary of the cost assumptions for PEC includes the following:

- Control Device and Auxiliary Equipment (EC);

- Instrumentation (10% of EC);

- Sales Tax (3% of EC);

- Freight (5% of EC);

and can be summarized as:

PEC = 118% EC.

A summary of the cost assumptions for DIC includes the following:

- Foundations and Supports (8% of PEC);

- Handling and Erection (14% of PEC);

- Electrical (4% of PEC);

- Piping (2% of PEC);

- Insulation for Ductwork (1% of PEC);

- Painting (1% of PEC);

and can be summarized as:

DIC = 30% PEC = 0.3 PEC.

Therefore, the direct costs can be simplified using the following
equation:

DC = PEC + 0.3 PEC = 1.3 PEC.

The indirect costs include the costs of engineering and contractor fees
and contingencies and can be summarized using the following equation:

IC = Indirect Installation Costs (ICC) + Contingencies (C).

A summary of the cost assumptions for ICC includes the following:

- Engineering (10% of PEC);

- Construction and Field Expenses (5% of PEC);

- Contractor Fees (10% of PEC);

- Startup (2% of PEC);

- Performance Test (1% of PEC);

and can be summarized as:

IIC = 28% PEC = 0.28 PEC.

A summary of the cost assumptions for C includes the following:

- Equipment Redesign and Modifications;

- Cost Escalations;

- Delays in Startup;

and is assumed to be:

C = 3% PEC = 0.03 PEC.

Therefore, the IC can be summarized using the following equation:

IC = 0.28 PEC + 0.03 PEC = 0.31 PEC,

and the simplified TCC equation can be expressed as:

TCC = 1.3 PEC + 0.31 PEC = 1.61 PEC = 1.61 (1.18 EC) = 1.9 EC

3.2 	Total Annual Costs

	The total annual cost includes the direct and indirect annual costs of
operating and maintaining the control equipment.  The direct annual cost
includes the cost of the utilities, operating labor, and control device
cleaning and maintenance.  The indirect annual cost includes the
overhead costs such as spare parts for the control equipment,
administrative charges, and the capital recovery of the control
technology.  The total annual cost equation can be summarized as
follows:

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = Direct Annual Costs (DAC) + Indirect Annual
Costs (IAC).

A summary of the cost assumptions for DAC includes the following:

- Utilities;

- Operating Labor;

- Maintenance;

- Annual Compliance Test;

- Catalyst Cleaning;

- Catalyst Replacement;

- Catalyst Disposal.

A summary of the cost assumptions for DAC includes the following:

- Overhead (60% of operating labor and maintenance costs);

- Fuel Penalty;

- Property Tax (1% of TCC);

- Insurance (1% of TCC);

- Administrative Charges (2% of TCC);

- Capital Recovery = {I(1+I)n/((1+I)n-1)*TCC} where I is the interest
rate, and n is the equipment life.

The DAC and fuel penalty costs will be estimated using information
obtained for each of the control technologies.  The other annual costs
will be calculated using the assumed percentages.

4.0	CONTROL COST EQUATIONS

4.1	Diesel Oxidation Catalysts

	The cost of retrofitting a DOC to an existing CI engine was estimated
using cost data obtained from a diesel engine control technology study
performed by the California ARB.  The study provided equipment cost
ranges for 40, 100, 275, 400, and 1,400 horsepower (HP) diesel engines.
The average cost in the cost range for each of the engine sizes was used
to develop the capital and annual cost for each of the engines.  The
capital cost was calculated using the EPA Control Cost methodology and
includes the direct, indirect, and contingency costs of installation of
the DOC.  The total annual cost was also calculated using the EPA
Control Cost methodology and includes the direct and indirect annual
costs of operating and maintaining the DOC.  Maintenance costs were
estimated using the average of the cost range provided in the California
ARB study.  The study estimated the maintenance costs to range from $64
to $712 per year; $50 to $100 for thermal cleaning and 1 hour labor
($78) once every other year to 4 times a year.  For estimating the
annual maintenance cost, the thermal cleaning was estimated to cost $153
($75 for cleaning + $78 for 1 hour labor) and the thermal cleaning would
occur twice a year for a total maintenance cost of $306 per year.  An
equipment life of 10 years and an interest rate of 7 percent were used
to estimate the indirect annual costs.  The 10 year equipment life is
consistent with the average life of control equipment.  The fuel penalty
associated with operating a DOC was assumed to be negligible.  The
capital and annual costs were adjusted to 2008 dollars using the
Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index.

	The calculated annual cost was plotted against the engine HP and the
resulting graph showed a straight line relationship between the annual
cost and engine HP.  Therefore a linear regression was performed using
the calculated annual cost and the engine HP to develop an equation that
estimates annual costs when an engine HP is input into the equation.  A
summary of the calculated annual costs, graph, and linear regression
analysis is presented in Appendix A of this memorandum.  The annualized
cost equation for retrofitting a DOC on a CI engine was estimated to be:

DOC Annual Cost = $4.99*HP + $480

where;

HP = engine size in HP.

The linear equation has a correlation coefficient of 0.9938, which shows
the data fit the equation very closely.  Therefore, this equation was
used to estimate annualized cost for DOC for RICE at major and area
sources.

	For capital cost, a graph of the calculated capital cost and the engine
HP showed a straight line relationship between the two variables.
Therefore a linear regression was performed using the calculated capital
cost and the engine HP to develop an equation that estimates capital
costs when an engine HP is input into the equation.  A summary of the
calculated capital costs, graph, and linear regression analysis is
presented in Appendix A of this memorandum.  The capital cost equation
for retrofitting a DOC on a CI engine was estimated to be:

DOC Capital Cost = $27.4*HP - $939

where;

HP = engine size in HP.

The linear equation has a correlation coefficient of 0.9938, which shows
the data fit the equation very closely.  Therefore, this equation was
used to estimate capital cost for DOC for RICE at major and area
sources.

4.2	Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filters

	The CDPF is a control technology that reduces the emissions of HAP from
CI engines.  However, it is primarily installed on engines for the
reduction of PM from the CI engine exhaust.  The catalyst element in the
CDPF is also effective in reducing the emissions of CO and volatile
organic compounds (VOC).  The filter system of the CDPF can be either
active or passive.  The passive CDPF uses heat from the engine to
regenerate the filter media, whereas the active filter uses an electric
heater or fuel burners to regenerate the filter media.  The catalyzed
coating in each of the two systems reduces emissions of CO, VOC, and HAP
emissions.

	The cost of retrofitting an active or passive CDPF to an existing CI
engine was estimated using cost data obtained from a diesel engine
control technology study performed by the California ARB.  The cost
study did not distinguish equipment costs between the active and passive
CDPF, therefore the equipment costs were assumed to be the same for both
technologies.  The study provided equipment cost ranges for 40, 100,
275, 400, and 1,400 HP diesel engines.  The average cost in the cost
range for each of these engine HPs and the EPA Control Cost methodology
were used to develop the capital and annual cost for each of the
engines.  An equipment life of 10 years and an interest rate of 7
percent were used to estimate the indirect annual costs.  The 10 year
equipment life is consistent with the average life of control equipment.
 The fuel penalty associated with operating a CDPF was assumed to be
negligible.  The capital and annual costs were adjusted to 2008 dollars
using the Marshall & Swift Equipment Cost Index.

	The calculated annual cost for the CDPF was plotted against the engine
HP and the resulting graph showed a straight line relationship between
the annual cost and engine HP.  Therefore a linear regression was
performed using the calculated annual cost and the engine HP to develop
an equation that estimates annual costs when an engine HP is input into
the equation.  A summary of the calculated annual costs, graph, and
linear regression analysis is presented in Appendix A of this
memorandum.  The annualized cost equation for retrofitting a CDPF on a
CI engine was estimated to be:

CDPF Annual Cost = $11.6*HP + 1414

where;

HP = engine size in HP.

The linear equation has a correlation coefficient of 0.9897, which shows
the data fit the equation very closely.  Therefore, this equation was
used to estimate annualized cost for retrofitting CDPF for CI at major
and area sources.

	For capital cost, a graph of the calculated capital cost and the engine
HP showed a straight line relationship between the two variables.
Therefore a linear regression was performed using the calculated capital
cost and the engine HP to develop an equation that estimates capital
costs when an engine HP is input into the equation.  A summary of the
calculated capital costs, graph, and linear regression analysis is
presented in Appendix A of this memorandum.  The capital cost equation
for retrofitting a CDPF on a CI engine was estimated to be:

CDPF Capital Cost = $63.4*HP + $5699

where;

HP = engine size in HP.

The linear equation has a correlation coefficient of 0.9897, which shows
the data fit the equation very closely.  Therefore, this equation was
used to estimate capital cost for CDPF for RICE at major and area
sources.

4.3	Open and Closed Crankcase Ventilation

	In diesel engines, the crankcase exhaust is either exhausted to the
atmosphere (open crankcase) or routed to the air intake to be used as
combustion air (closed crankcase).  Crankcase ventilation systems use
filtration or centrifugal force to remove oil mist and particulates from
the crankcase exhaust stream in both open and closed crankcase diesel
engines.  The OCV system is installed on diesel engines with open
crankcases, whereas the CCV system is installed on diesel engines with
closed crankcases.  The filtration or separator units used for both OCV
and CCV are the same and have essentially the same cost.  Therefore for
this analysis, it is assumed that the capital and annual cost of OCV and
CCV are the same.

	The cost of retrofitting an OCV on an existing CI engine was estimated
based on information obtained from a distributor of the OCV technology
(see Appendix B).  The distributor sells and installs three different
models of the OCV system and provided information on the installation
costs and maintenance required.  These models were applied to engine
sizes of 100, 150, 200, 300, 500, 750, 1,000, 1,250, and 1,500 HP to
estimate capital and annual costs using the EPA Control Cost
methodology.  An equipment life of 10 years and an interest rate of 7
percent were used to estimate the indirect annual costs.  The 10 year
equipment life is consistent with the average life of control equipment.
 The calculated annual cost and engine size were graphed and a straight
line relationship was observed.  A linear regression analysis was done
on the data set and the linear equation for annualized cost was;

OCV Annual Cost = $0.065*HP + $254

where;

HP = engine size in HP.

The linear equation has a correlation coefficient of 0.8154, which is
due to the same annual cost being calculated for several different sized
CI engines.  This is due to the fact that the same model OCV can be
retrofit on several different engine sizes, because the OCV are based on
the flow rate of the crankcase exhaust.  However, it is believed that
the equation represents a representative average annual cost of
retrofitting an OCV on a CI engine.

	For capital cost, a graph of the calculated capital cost and the engine
HP showed a straight line relationship between the two variables.
Therefore a linear regression was performed using the calculated capital
cost and the engine HP to develop an equation that estimates capital
costs when an engine HP is input into the equation.  A summary of the
calculated capital costs, graph, and linear regression analysis is
presented in Appendix A of this memorandum.  The capital cost equation
for retrofitting a OCV on a CI engine was estimated to be:

OCV Capital Cost = $0.26*HP + $997

where;

HP = engine size in HP.

The linear equation has a correlation coefficient of 0.7920, where again
the capital cost was calculated to be the same for several different
sized CI engines.  However, it is believed that the cost equation
provides a representative estimate of the average capital cost of
retrofitting an OCV on a CI engine.

5.0	SUMMARY

The following table presents a summary of the costs for control devices
to reduce HAP emissions from stationary CI engines.

Table 1.  Summary of Annual and Capital Costs Equations for CI HAP
Controls

HAP Control Device	Annual Cost ($)	Capital Cost ($)

DOC	$4.99*HP + $480	$27.4*HP - $939

CDPF	$11.6*HP + $1414	$63.4*HP + $5699

OCV	$0.065*HP + $254	$0.26*HP + $997

Appendix A

Control Cost Summary and Linear Regression Statistics

Appendix B

Contact Report

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

CONTACT REPORT

Date/Time	Project Name	Project Number

November 20, 2009  10:00pm	RICE NESHAP	MME-304

EC/R Originator	Contact	Phone Number

Bradley Nelson	Chuck Cook – Mid-Atlantic Engine Supply<PHONE_NUMBER>

General Subject

The purpose of the telephone call was to discuss the feasibility of
retrofitting existing stationary diesel engines with an open or closed
crankcase ventilation system, and obtain equipment and installation
costs for the retrofit.  I spoke with General Manager of the company who
stated that their company had installed numerous open and closed
crankcase ventilation systems on both stationary and nonroad engines.
He stated that the OCV and CCV systems are the same products with the
only difference being the installation kit needed to retrofit the unit.
The OCV system is installed in the open crankcase ventilation port,
whereas the CCV is installed somewhere along the crankcase exhaust line
before it reaches the intake manifold.  He noted that engines that are
enclosed in a housing or other shelter emit an oil mist from the
crankcase that accumulates on the radiator and reduces the radiators
effectiveness in cooling the engine.  He noted that the Racor systems
they sell reduce oil mist emissions by 95% using a filtration system.
The equipment costs for the systems are;

CCV4500 Series – Maximum Flow 10 CFM (< 160 HP diesel engines)
 $500

CCV6000 Series – Maximum Flow 20 CFM (160-800 HP diesel engines)
$600

CCV8000 Series – Maximum Flow 40 CFM (> 800 HP diesel engines)
 $700

The filter needs to be replaced every 750 hours and the replacement cost
is $45 for the 4500, $50 for the 6000, and $60 for the 8000.  The
contact also stated it takes roughly 1-2 hours for installation,
therefore at $80 per hour, installation would cost roughly $160.

 HYPERLINK
"http://www.maesco.com/products/racor/r_ccv_intro/r_ccv_intro.html"
http://www.maesco.com/products/racor/r_ccv_intro/r_ccv_intro.html

 Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from
Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, California Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Mobile Source
Control Division, October 2000.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm"
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm

 EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, January 2002,
EPA/452/B-02-001.

 Appendix IX, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions
from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, California Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division,
Mobile Source Control Division, October 2000.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp9.PDF"
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp9.PDF

 Appendix IX, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions
from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, California Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division,
Mobile Source Control Division, October 2000.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp9.PDF"
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp9.PDF

E C/R Incorporated	Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250  (  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>  (  Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

 PAGE  8

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  12


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 33745]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

RE Camelot LLC..........................................     EG14-29-000
Windthorst-2, LLC.......................................     EG14-30-000
Spinning Spur Wind Two, LLC.............................     EG14-31-000
Copper Mountain Solar 3, LLC............................     EG14-32-000
Campo Verde Solar, LLC..................................     EG14-33-000
Lone Valley Solar Park I LLC............................     EG14-34-000
Lone Valley Solar Park II LLC...........................     EG14-35-000

    Take notice that during the month of May 2014, the status of the
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators Companies
became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR
366.7(a).

    Dated: June 6, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13730 Filed 6-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 86706]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD16-9-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725V); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the
information collection, [FERC-725V (Mandatory Reliability Standards:
COM Reliability Standards)] which will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection
requirements.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due January 30,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. RD16-9-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725V, Mandatory Reliability Standards: COM Reliability
Standards.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0277.
    Type of Request: Three-year approval of the FERC-725V information
collection requirements, as modified.
    Abstract: On August 15, 2016, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) filed a petition for Commission
approval, pursuant to section 215(d)(1) of the Federal Power Act
(``FPA'') \1\ and Section 39.5 \2\ of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's regulations, for approval of proposed Reliability Standard
COM-001-3 (Communications), the associated Implementation Plan,
retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standard COM-001-2.1, and
Violation Risk Factors (``VRFs'') and Violation Severity Levels
(``VSLs'') associated with new Requirements R12 and R13 proposed in
Reliability Standard COM-001-3. Proposed Reliability Standard COM-001-3
reflects revisions developed under Project 2015-07 Internal
Communications Capabilities, in compliance with the Commission's
directive in Order No. 888 that NERC ``develop modifications to COM-
001-2, or develop a new standard, to address [the Commission's]
concerns regarding ensuring the adequacy of internal communications
capability whenever internal communications could directly affect the
reliability operations of the Bulk-Power System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012).
    \2\ 18 CFR 39.5 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondents: Public utilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \3\ With respect to the proposed
revisions to Reliability Standard COM-001-3 and the retirement of the
currently-effective Reliability Standard COM-001-2.1, the Commission
estimates that there will be no material change in industry information
collection obligations because the Requirements R12 and R13 (which are
additions to COM-001-3) do not impact the paperwork burden of impacted
registered entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission defines burden as 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. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: November 23, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28851 Filed 11-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION

PART A

1.0  	Identification of the Information Collection

(a) 	Title and Number of the Information Collection.

	“National Emission Standards Mineral Wool Production.”  This is a
new information collection request (ICR), and the EPA tracking number is
1799.06.

 (b) 	Short Characterization.

	This ICR covers information collection requirements in the proposed
amendments to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDD).

	The potential respondents are owners or operators of any existing, new,
or reconstructed mineral wool production facilities. There are an
estimated 8 facilities subject to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP.
The affected source is any mineral wool production facility that is
engaged, either in part or in whole, in the production of mineral wool
and that is located at a plant site that is a major source as defined in
40 CFR part 63.2.

The proposed amendments would require HAP-specific emission limits for
COS from cupolas; revised emission limits for formaldehyde and new
emission limits for phenol, and methanol from 3 new subcategories of
combined collection/curing operations; and new requirements for periods
of startup and shutdown. The proposed emission limits for COS can be met
by cost effective measures such as changes in raw materials and the
other proposed emission limits are currently being met by all
facilities. These amendments are explained further in the following
paragraphs.

The information collection requirements associated with the proposed
amendments to the NESHAP are listed in Attachment 1.

2.  	Need For and Use of the Collection

(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection.

	Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish NESHAP
for both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation
under CAA section 112(c).  A major source is a stationary source that
emits or has the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year (tpy) of
any single HAP or more than 25 tpy of any combination of HAP.  An area
source is a stationary source that is not a major source (i.e., an area
source does not emit and does not have the potential to emit more than
10 tpy of any single HAP and more than 25 tpy of any combination of
HAP).  For major sources, these technology-based standards must reflect
the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards.  Section 112(d)(6)
requires EPA to review these technology-based standards and to revise
them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8
years.  In addition, section 112(f) of the CAA requires EPA to determine
for source categories subject to certain CAA section 112(d) standards
whether the emissions limitations provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health.  For MACT standards for HAP “classified as a
known, probable, or possible human carcinogen" that "do not reduce
lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions
from a source in the category or subcategory to less than 1-in-1
million,” EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the source
category (or subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health.  In doing so, EPA may adopt standards
equal to existing MACT standards, if EPA determines that the existing
standards are sufficiently protective.  EPA must also adopt more
stringent standards, if necessary, to prevent an adverse environmental
effect, but must consider cost, energy, safety, and other relevant
factors in doing so.

	Certain records and reports are necessary for the Administrator to
confirm the compliance status of sources subject to NESHAP, identify any
new or reconstructed sources subject to the standards, and confirm that
the standards are being achieved on a continuous basis.  These
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by
section 114 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7414) and set out in the
part 63 NESHAP General Provisions.  The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for title V permits are contained in 40 CFR 70.6 and 40 CFR
71.6.  Under parts 63 and 70 or 71, the owner or operator must keep each
record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.

 (b)	Use/Users of the Data.

	The information will be used by the delegated authority (State agency,
or Regional Administrator if there is no delegated State agency) to
ensure that the standards and other requirements are being achieved.
Based on review of the recorded information at the site and the reported
information, the delegated permitting authority can identify facilities
that may not be in compliance and decide which facilities, records, or
processes may need inspection.

3.	Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

(a)	Nonduplication.

A computer search of EPA’s ongoing ICRs revealed no duplication of
information-gathering efforts.

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

	This section is not applicable because this is a rule-related ICR.

(c)	Consultations.

The proposed amendments were developed in consultation with individual
companies, State agencies, and trade associations.  The non-EPA persons
consulted on the information collection activities are identified in
Table 1.

TABLE 1.  PERSONS CONSULTED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

Contact	Organization	Telephone No.

Angus Crane	North American Insulation Manufacturers Association
703-684-0084

Lee Houlditch	Amerrock Products LP<PHONE_NUMBER>

John Dolin	Industrial Insulation Group LLC<PHONE_NUMBER>

Tom Lund

	Isolatek International<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 328

Christopher Bullock	Rock Wool Mfg Co.<PHONE_NUMBER>

Steve Edris

	Thermafiber, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER>  ext. 224

John Bolden	USG Interiors<PHONE_NUMBER>

(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

	If the relevant information was collected less frequently, the
delegated permitting authority (State or EPA) will not be reasonably
assured that a facility is in compliance with the standards.

(e)	General Guidelines.

	None of the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6 are being exceeded.

(f)	Confidentiality.

	All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart
B--Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

(g)  	Sensitive Questions.

	This section is not applicable because this ICR does not involve
matters of a sensitive nature.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes.

Potential respondents under subpart DDD are owners or operators of any
existing or new facility engaged in mineral wool production operations.
Mineral wool production facilities are primarily classified under NAICS
code 327993, Mineral Wool Manufacturing.

There are an estimated 7 existing facilities that would be subject to
the proposed amendments to the NESHAP.  In addition, one new mineral
wool production facility is being constructed, and is expected to be
completed during the 3year period of this ICR.

 (b) Information Requested.

	(i)  Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements.  Attachment 1,
Information Requirements, summarizes the data items, including
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, for the Mineral Wool
Production source category.

	(ii)  Respondent Activities.  The respondent activities that will be
required by the proposed amendments to the Mineral Wool Production
NESHAP are identified in Table 2 and are introduced in section 6(a).

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

(a)	Agency Activities.

	The Agency activities associated with the proposed amendments to the
Mineral Wool Production NESHAP are provided in Table 3 and are
introduced in section 6(c).

(b)	Collection Methodology and Management.

	Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and
published for use in compliance and enforcement programs of the
delegated permitting authority.  EPA is the permitting authority until
the State agency is delegated authority to implement the proposed
amendments to the rule.  Therefore, information contained in any report
submitted to the Regional Administrator will be entered into the Air
Facility System (AFS), which is operated and maintained by EPA’s
Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s database for the collection,
maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000
industrial and government-owned facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for
tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state
regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters.  EPA and
its delegated authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the
data.

(c)  	Small Entity Flexibility.

	The Small Business Administration defines a small entity engaging in
mineral wool production operations as a firm having no more than 500
employees.  There are six companies operating the 8 mineral wool
production facilities and five of the six companies are small
businesses.  The proposed amendments would not result in significant
adverse impacts on any of the small entities in the Mineral Wool
Production source category.  The impacts to most producers affected by
this proposed rule are annualized costs of less than one percent of
their revenues using the most current year available for revenue data.
The proposed amendments would create new requirements for compliance
testing for existing sources and associated notification requirements,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

(d)  	Collection Schedule.

	The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 2 for the Mineral Wool Production Source
Category.

6.   	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

(a)  	Estimating Respondent Burden.

	The annual burden estimates for the proposed amendments to the Mineral
Wool Production NESHAP are shown in Table 2.  These numbers were derived
from estimates based on EPA’s experience with other standards.  No
burden estimates are provided for new sources because no new facilities
are expected to become affected sources during the 3year period of this
ICR.

(b)  	Estimating Respondent Costs.

	The information collection activities for the proposed amendments to
the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP are presented in Table 2.  Because
the data are already collected by respondents as part of normal
operations, no respondent development costs are associated with the
information collection activities.

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs.  Labor rates and associated costs are based
on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data.  Technical, management, and
clerical average hourly rates for private industry workers were taken
from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2011 available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_327200.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_327200.htm .   Wages for technical
labor are based on "Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing –
architectural and engineering," with a total compensation of
$38.54/hour.  Wages for management labor are taken from "Glass and Glass
Product Manufacturing – management, business, and financial," with a
total compensation of $58.29/hour.   Wages for clerical labor are based
on "Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing – production, planning, and
expediting clerks," with a total compensation of $21.11/hour.  These
rates represent salaries plus fringe benefits and do not include the
cost of overhead.  An overhead rate of 110 percent is used to account
for these costs.  The fully-burdened hourly wage rates used to represent
respondent labor costs are:  technical at $80.93 /hour, management at
$122.41 /hour, and clerical at $44.33 /hour.

	(ii)  Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.
No capital costs or O & M costs are associated with the information
collection requirements of the proposed amendments to the Mineral Wool
Production NESHAP.  The proposed amendments would not require affected
facilities to purchase new monitoring systems, but would require all
facilities to conduct new performance testing to demonstrate compliance
with the new emission limits.

	(iii)  Annualizing Capital Costs.  No capital costs associated with the
information collection requirements of the proposed amendments to the
Mineral Wool Production NESHAP.

(c)  	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

	Because the information collection requirements were developed as an
incidental part of standards development, no costs can be attributed to
the development of the information collection requirements.  Because
reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents
are required under the operating permits rules in 40 CFR part 70 or part
71 and the part 63 NESHAP General Provisions, no operational costs will
be incurred by the Federal Government.  Publication and distribution of
the information are part of the Compliance Data System, with the result
that no Federal costs can be directly attributed to the ICR.
Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur
incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part
of EPA’s overall compliance and enforcement program, and, therefore,
is not attributable to the ICR.  The only costs that the Federal
government will incur are user costs associated with the analysis of the
reported information, as presented in Table 3.

	The Agency labor rates are from the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) 2010 General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay.
These rates can be obtained from Salary Table 2010-GS available on the
OPM website,   HYPERLINK "http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/pdf/gs_h.pdf"
http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/pdf/gs_h.pdf . The government employee
labor rates are $15.63/hour for clerical (GS-6, Step 3), $28.88 for
technical (GS-12, Step 1), and $38.92/hr for management (GS-13, Step 5).
 These rates were increased by 60 percent to include fringe benefits and
overhead.  The fully-burdened wage rates used to represent Agency labor
costs are:  clerical at $25.01/hour; technical at $46.21/hour, and
management at $62.27/hour.

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

There are an estimated 7 existing facilities that are subject to the
Mineral Wool Production NESHAP.  One new source is being constructed and
is expected to be completed within the next 3 years.  Consequently, the
average number of mineral wool respondents during the 3-year period of
this ICR is 8 divided by 3 = 2.67.

For the proposed amendments to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP, the
components of the total annual burden attributable to this ICR include
reading the amendments to the NESHAP; conducting the performance testing
to demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission limits; and
reporting the results of those emissions tests; all other recordkeeping
and reporting activities are already accounted for in the ICR for the
NESHAP.

(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables.

(i)  Respondent tally.  The bottom line respondent burden hours and
costs, presented in Table 2 are calculated by adding person-hours per
year down each column for technical, managerial, and clerical staff, and
by adding down the cost column.  The average annual burden for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the proposed amendments to
subpart DDD for the 8 facilities that are subject to the Mineral Wool
Production NESHAP is 123 person-hours, with an annual average cost of
$29,550.  No capital costs would be expected for the proposed
amendments.

	(ii)  The Agency tally.  The average annual Federal Government cost is
$1,085 for 25 hours for the proposed amendments to subpart DDD.  The
bottom line Agency burden hours and costs presented in Table 3 are
calculated by adding person-hours per year down each column for
technical, managerial, and clerical staff, and by adding down the cost
column.

	(iii)  Variations in the annual bottom line.  This section does not
apply since no significant variation is anticipated.

(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden.

	This section does not apply because this is a new ICR.

 (g)  	Burden Statement

	The average annual respondent burden for the proposed amendments to the
Mineral Wool Production NESHAP is estimated at 40 hours per facility.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

	An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

	To comment on the Agency’s need for this information the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggestions for minimizing
respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041, which is available for online
viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
http://www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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
"http://www.regulations.gov."  http://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, you can send comments 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 relevant Docket ID Number (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041) in any
correspondence.

PART B

	This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used
in data collection associated with the proposed rule.TABLE 2.  ANNUAL
RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST -- AMENDMENTS TO MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION
NESHAP

Burden item	(A)

Person-hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per respondent	(C)

Person-hours per respondent (C=A*B)	(D) Respondents per year	(E)

Technical person-hours per year (E=C*D)	(F)

Management person-hours per year

 (E*0.05)	(G)

Clerical person-hours per year (E*0.1)	(H)

Costa, $

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Surveys and Studies	N/A

	3.  Acquisition, Installation, and Utilization of Technology and
Systems	N/A

	4.  Reporting Requirements

A.  Read instructionsb	8	1	8	2.67	21.4	1.1	2.1	$1,960

B.  Required activitiesc  (compliance testing)	$7,400	1

2.67

$19,758

C.  Create informationc	8	2	16	2.67	42.8	2.1	4.3	$3,912

D.  Gather existing information	N/A

	E.  Write report	8	1	8	2.67	21.4	1.1	2.1	$1,960

5.  Recordkeeping Requirements

A.  Read instructions	See 4A

	B.  Plan activities	N/A

	C.  Implement activities	N/A

	D.  Develop record system	N/A

	E.  Time to enter information	See 4C

	F.  Time to train personnel	N/A

	G.  Time to adjust existing ways to comply with previously applicable
requirements	N/A

	H.  Time to transmit or disclose information	8	1	8	2.67	21.4	1.1	2.1
$1,960

I.  Time for audits	N/A

	TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (SALARY)

	107	5.4	10.6	$29,550

TOTAL NUMBER OF ANNUAL RESPONSES	8

ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTSd

	TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS

$29,550

N/A = not applicable.

a  This ICR uses the following labor rates: $122.41 for managerial
labor, $80.93 for technical labor, and $44.33 for clerical labor.  These
rates are based on the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2011.

b  There are an estimated 7 existing facilities and 1 new facility being
constructed; the average number expected to read the rule during the
3-yr compliance period is 8 / 3 = 2.67.

c The average facility cost for new COS, HF/HCl, phenol, and methanol
testing was calculated to be $59,200 / 8 facilities = $7,400.

d  There would be no capital costs associated with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the proposed amendments.

 3.  ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST TO THE AGENCY ---- AMENDMENTS TO MINERAL
WOOL PRODUCTION NESHAP

Burden item	(A)

Person-hours per occurrence	(B) Occurrences per respondent	(C)

EPA person-hours/year (C=A*B)	(D)

Facilities per year	(E)

Technical person-hours/year (E=C*D)	(F)

Management   person-hours/year (F=0.05*E)	(G)

Clerical person-hours/year (G=0.1*E)	(H)

Costa, $

Report Review:

   Review compliance test reports for COS  for cupolas and formaldehyde,
phenol, and methanol for collection/curing operationsb	8	1	8	2.67	21.4
1.1	2.1	$1,085

TOTAL BURDEN AND COST

$1,085

a   This ICR uses the following average hourly labor rates: $62.27 for
managerial (GS-13, Step 5), $46.21 (GS-12, Step 1) for technical, and
$25.01 (GS-6, Step 3) for clerical.  These rates are from the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) 2011 General Schedule, which excludes
locality rates of pay.

b Assumes Agency will review all of the annual reports  - including the
new COS,  phenol, and methanol emissions testing.ATTACHMENT 1.
INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS ---- AMENDMENTS TO MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION
NESHAP

Requirement	Citation for existing sources	Citation for new sources
General Provisions citation

COS limit for cupolas	§ 63.1178(a)(2)(i)	§ 63.1178(a)(2)(ii)

	Formaldehyde  limit for combined collection/curing operations
§ 63.1179	§ 63.1179

	Phenol  limit for combined collection/curing operations 	§ 63.1179
§ 63.1179

	Methanol limit for combined collection/curing operations 	§ 63.1179
§ 63.1179

	Notifications	§ 63.1191	§ 63.1191	N/A

Plans

	    Operation and Maintenance Plan	N/A	N/A	N/A

Records

	    Monitoring/inspection information	§ 63.1192	§ 63.1192	N/A

Reports	§ 63.1193	§ 63.1193	40 CFR 63.10(e)

 PAGE

 PAGE  12

  PAGE  13

  PAGE   15