STANDARD FORM 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR NO. 2044.02  NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS: PLASTIC PARTS AND PRODUCTS SURFACE COATING ( 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART PPPP)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 July 11, 2003 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT: JUSTIFICATIONS 1. Identification of the Information Collection ( a) Title and Number of the Information Collected The title of this information collection request ( ICR) is " Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP): Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating." This is a new ICR that has been assigned Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) ICR No.

2044.02.

( b) Short characterization/ abstract The final standards will regulate organic hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) emissions resulting from the surface coating of plastic parts and products. The majority of organic HAP emissions from a facility engaged in plastic parts and products surface coating operations can be attributed to the application of the coating, drying, and curing. The organic HAP that are used in coatings as solvents and carriers are volatilized and emitted during the coating application process and while the coated parts are drying and curing in flash off, drying, and curing areas.

Each owner or operator of a source affected by the final standards will be required to submit an initial notification that the source is subject to the standard. Each respondent would submit semiannual compliance reports. Additional records and notifications would depend on how the owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards. The owner or operator of a plastic parts and products surface coating operation that is subject to these final standards will be required to control organic HAP by either limiting the organic HAP content of every individual material used in the coating operations ( compliant material 2 option), demonstrating that the source wide organic HAP emissions meet the emission limit ( emission rate without add on controls option), or by using an emission capture and control system to demonstrate that the source wide emissions meet the emission limitation ( emission rate with add on controls option).

The EPA expects that 20 percent of respondents would be able to comply by limiting the organic HAP content of every material used in the surface coating operations ( compliant material option). These respondents would keep records of the materials used and their HAP content to demonstrate compliance. The EPA expects that 80 percent of respondents would comply by demonstrating that the source wide HAP emissions meet the emission limitation ( emission rate without add on controls option or emission rate with add on controls option). Respondents would monitor and record ( typically in a spreadsheet) the monthly consumption of materials, and their HAP contents, and calculate the weighted average organic HAP emissions over the most recent 12 months.

Nineteen of these existing facilities ( about 10% of facilities) already have add on controls and would use the emission rate with add on controls option. They would keep the same records as respondents using the emission rate without addon controls option.

In addition, respondents who choose to use an emission capture and control system would be required to develop a startup shutdown, and malfunction plan and a work practice plan and submit a notification for and conduct the initial add on control device performance test. The EPA expects one new facility will start up per year and will comply by using the emission rate without add on controls option.

All facilities would be required to submit notifications and reports to demonstrate compliance with the rule. These include 3 one time reporting such as the notification of compliance status and semi annual compliance reports.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA needs this information to ensure that HAP emissions are reduced in plastic parts and products surface coating operations. The EPA is required under section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) to regulate emissions of the HAP listed in section 112( b) of the CAA. The major HAP identified by EPA as being emitted from these operations include toluene, methyl ethyl ketone ( MEK), xylenes, and methyl isobutyl ketone ( MIBK).

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from plastic parts and products surface coating operations cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. Consequently, a NESHAP for this source category has been developed.

Section 114 of the CAA allows the Administrator to require inspections, monitoring, and entry into facilities to ensure compliance with a section 112 emission standard.

Section 114( a)( 1) specifically states:

" The Administrator may require any person who owns or operates any emission source... who is subject to any requirement of this Act... on a one time, periodic or continuous basis to;

( A) establish and maintain such records;

( B) make such reports;

( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods;

( D) sample such emissions;

( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; 4 ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require."

Certain records and reports are necessary to enable the Administrator to identify sources subject to the standard and to ensure that the standard, which is based on a maximum achievable control technology ( MACT), is being achieved.

( b) Practical Utility/ Users of Collected Information The information will be used by EPA to ensure that the requirements of the plastic parts and products surface coating NESHAP are implemented and are complied with on a continuous basis. Records and reports will be necessary to enable EPA to identify facilities that may not be in compliance with the emission limitations. Based on reported information, EPA would decide which plastic parts and products surface coating facilities should be inspected and what records or processes should be inspected. The records would indicate to EPA whether owners and operators are correctly performing the required calculations to demonstrate compliance. If owners or operators use an add on control device, the records would also indicate whether the add on control device is being properly operated and maintained.

To minimize reporting burdens, much of the information EPA would need to determine compliance would be recorded and retained on site at the facility. Such information would be reviewed by enforcement personnel during an inspection and would not need to be routinely reported to EPA. In addition, in many cases EPA has selected parameters for monitoring that are readily available or are already monitored by the industry for other purposes.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 5 ( a) Nonduplication Facilities that are subject to the NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines ( 40 CFR part 60,

subpart TTT) will be subject to the requirements of both the subpart TTT NSPS and this NESHAP, but they will not be subject to conflicting requirements between the two standards. Subpart TTT applies to sources constructed after January 8, 1986 that coat plastic parts for use in the manufacture of business machines.

Subpart TTT establishes volatile organic compound ( VOC) emission limitations for specific types of coatings ( e. g., prime coats,

color coats, texture coats), whereas this NESHAP will regulate HAP emissions.

The burden requested for this NESHAP requires similar information as subpart TTT NSPS. Facilities complying with the NSPS are required to calculate the mass of VOC emitted per volume of coating solids applied for each type of coating used ( i. e.,

prime coats, color coats, texture coats) on a monthly basis. To do this, facilities must determine the composition of each coating either by testing or by using information provided by the supplier or manufacturer. Similar information is required by this NESHAP. Thus, facilities that are complying with both standards will be able to streamline their testing and recordkeeping requirements. In addition, both the NSPS and this NESHAP require reporting on a semiannual basis. Facilities can submit a single report with the necessary information to demonstrate compliance with both standards.

In addition, some facilities that are subject to the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities NESHAP ( 40 CFR 63,

subpart GG), the Shipbuilding and Repair NESHAP ( 40 CFR 63,

subpart II), the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP ( 40 CFR 63, subpart MMMM), or the upcoming Automobile and Light Duty Truck NESHAP ( 40 CFR 63, subpart IIII) may be subject to the 6 requirements of one or more of these other NESHAP and this NESHAP.

However, the rule includes several alternative provisions so that a facility subject to more than one NESHAP only has to fulfil the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of a single rule. These provisions include compliance with a single NESHAP for all surface coating activity; compliance with a single emission limit representing the predominant surface coating activity ( i. e., greater than 90 percent); or compliance with a composite emission limit reflecting the different limits to which a source is subject. We predict that only a minority of sources will need to utilize one of these options because of overlap among applicable NESHAP. These options were specifically designed so that the burden for these facilities will not be different from those that are subject to only this NESHAP.

If a facility decides, instead, to comply with multiple NESHAP separately, the burden requested for this NESHAP requires similar information as for these other NESHAP. Facilities complying with another NESHAP will be able to use coating composition information required by this NESHAP. Therefore,

facilities that are complying with more than one NESHAP will be able to streamline their gathering of coating data. Furthermore,

all these NESHAP require semiannual reporting so that facilities can submit one report to demonstrate compliance with more than one standard.

Certain reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information required by the standards. In such cases,

a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency may be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the standards. 7 ( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to the Office of Management and Budget The EPA has solicited public comments on the need for this information, the accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden from this rule.

( c) Consultations The EPA has minimized the impact of this rule on small entities throughout the rule development process.

Representatives of small entities have participated in stakeholder meetings held during the last five years. Further,

EPA is applying the minimum level of control to affected sources allowed by the Clean Air Act. The rule includes compliance options that give small entities flexibility in choosing the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative for their operation. For example, a facility could purchase and use low

HAP coatings ( i. e., pollution prevention) instead of using add on capture and control systems. This method of compliance can be demonstrated with minimum burden by using purchase and usage records. No testing of materials would be required, as the facility owner could show that the coatings meet the emission limits by providing formulation data supplied by the manufacturer, which is typically already available to facilities.

( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Failure to require periodic reporting of HAP emissions will prevent the Administrator from determining if a source is in compliance with the NESHAP. If the reports and data parameters were collected less frequently, EPA would not be able to identify potential compliance problems in a timely fashion. Semiannual reports are required so that EPA can ensure that timely corrective action is being taken. 8 Respondents who choose to use an emission capture and control system would submit a control system performance test report, including operating limits for enclosure volumetric flowrate and enclosure opening pressure drop across the enclosure openings. The operating limits ensure that the system maintains a constant capture efficiency. Respondents would also be required to establish operating limits, monitor, and keep records of specific operating parameters for each control device to ensure the control device continues to be well operated to achieve HAP reduction, and report any deviations from these operating parameters. If this information were collected less frequently, the main consequence could be decreased performance of emission control measures due to lack of regular inspection,

which could result in increased HAP emissions.

( e) General Guidelines This information collection meets the Office of Management and Budget's ( OMB) general guidelines for information collections and therefore does not require justification for any deviation from OMB's general guidelines.

( f) Confidentiality All information submitted to EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information.

( g) Sensitive questions This information collection does not request any information concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 9 ( a) Respondents/ North American Industrial Classification System and Standard Industrial Classification Codes The final source category definition includes facilities that apply coatings to plastic parts and products. In general,

facilities that coat plastic parts and products are covered under the North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes listed in the following table.

REGULATED CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES Category NAICS Examples of potentially regulated entities Industrial 337214 Office furniture, except wood 32614, 32615 Plastic foam products ( e. g. pool floats, wrestling mats, life jackets)

326199 Plastic products not elsewhere classified ( e. g., name plates, coin holders, storage boxes, license plate housings, cosmetic caps, cup holders)

333313 Office machines 33422 Radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment ( e. g., cellular telephones)

336399 Motor vehicle parts and accessories 336999 Transportation equipment not elsewhere classified ( e. g., snowmobile hoods, running boards, tractor body panels, personal watercraft parts)

339111, 339112 Medical equipment and supplies 33992 Sporting and athletic goods 33995 Signs and advertising specialties Category NAICS Examples of potentially regulated entities 10 339999 Manufacturing industries not elsewhere classified ( e. g., bezels, consoles, panels, lenses)

Federal, State, and Local Governments Government owned or operated facilities that perform plastic parts and products surface coating ( b) Information Requested ( i) Data items, including recordkeeping requirements:

Test report. Facilities using an add on control device will be required to establish the operating range for monitored parameters; prepare a start up, shutdown, and malfunction plan;

and submit a notification of performance tests and an initial add on control device performance test report.

Notification reports. The owner or operator of each facility will be required to submit an initial notification report that the source is subject to the standard. The owner or operator of each new facility would be required to submit notifications of intent to construct, construction start date,

anticipated start up date, and actual start up date. All new and existing facilities will be required to submit a notification of compliance status including their initial compliance demonstration.

Compliance reports. The owner or operator of each facility will be required to submit semiannual compliance reports.

Sources with deviations would be required to provide additional detail in the semi annual compliance report.

Work practice plan. Facilities using an add on control device would be required to develop a work practice plan. The plan would include site specific requirements such as storing coatings in closed containers, transferring materials in closed systems, minimizing spills, and using closed mixing vessels. 11 Records and Calculations. Facilities complying with the emission limitations using the compliant material option or the emission rate with or without add on controls) option will develop a recordkeeping system ( typically a spreadsheet) and enter information into the system. The EPA expects that to determine HAP content, facilities will have manufacturer's formulation data for materials used and would obtain usage data from purchasing records. Facilities will track the materials used, review the manufacturer's formulation data, and enter information from the formulation data into the spreadsheet. In addition, the facilities using the emission rate ( with or without add on controls) option will set up, run, and check the spreadsheet calculations used to determine the source wide emission rate.

( ii) Respondent activities: To assemble, submit, and store the data items necessary to submit the reports, an entity would typically develop a spreadsheet system for keeping records. The EPA expects that entities will gather information that is already available.

5. The Information Collected   Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management ( a) Agency Activities A list of Agency activities is provided in tables 5 through 7 ( see attachment 3).

( b) Collection Methodology and Management This collection of information does not require the use of automated collection techniques because of the relatively small number of respondents affected.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility 12 The EPA does not expect the rule to adversely affect small entities. In developing this regulation, EPA has provided the maximum degree of flexibility to minimize impacts on small businesses by providing different compliance options, including options that require a minimum amount of recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

The EPA has determined that 50 of the 131 firms, or 38 percent of the total, affected by the rule may be small.

While the number of small firms appears to be a large proportion of the total number of affected firms, the small firms only experience 11 percent of the total national compliance cost of $ 13 million. Of the 50 affected small firms, only three firms are estimated to have compliance costs that exceed one percent of their revenues. In addition, only one small firm is estimated to have compliance costs that exceed three percent of its revenues,

and the amount of the exceedance is only 0.02 percent. Finally,

while there is a difference between the median compliance cost to sales estimates for the affected small and large firms ( 0.09 percent compared to 0.01 percent for the large firms), no adverse economic impacts are expected for either small or large firms affected by the rule. Therefore, the affected small firms are not disproportionately affected by this rule as compared to the affected large firms.

Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities throughout the rule development process. Representatives of small entities have participated in stakeholder meetings held during the rule development. Further, the Agency is applying the minimum level of control to affected sources allowed by the CAA. The rule offers compliance options which give small entities flexibility in choosing the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative for their operation. For example, a facility could 13 purchase and use low HAP coatings ( i. e., pollution prevention)

instead of using add on capture and control systems. This method of compliance can be demonstrated with minimum burden by using purchase and usage records. No testing of materials would be required, as the facility owner could show that their coatings meet the emission limits by providing formulation data supplied by the manufacturer.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the plastic parts and products surface coating rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) a small business that has less than 500 or 1,000 employees, depending on the size definition for the affected Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Code; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,

county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. It should be noted that companies classified under 24 different Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes are affected by the rule, and the small business definition applied to each industry by SIC code is listed in the Small Business Administration ( SBA) size standards ( 13 CFR 121). For more information on size standards for particular industries, refer to the economic impact analysis memorandum in the docket ( Docket No. A 99 12).

Small entities that will be subject to the regulation will not be systematically impacted more than larger entities.

Although the recordkeeping requirements are the same for small businesses and large businesses, EPA considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small businesses.

( d) Collection Schedule 14 The EPA expects one new facility to be constructed for each of the first 3 years. The EPA assumes that because compliance is not required until year 3 for existing facilities, existing facilities will wait until year 3 to begin complying with the requirements.

Year 1 for new and existing facilities includes the one time activity of reading the regulation. It also includes submitting the initial notification for existing sources that the source is subject to the standard.

New major sources would submit the following one time only notifications: intent to construct, start of construction date,

anticipated start up date, and actual start up date. These notifications generally would be submitted within 60 days of the activity.

In year 1, new facilities will begin training their personnel regarding the use of low HAP and compliant coatings and tracking their usage. Existing facilities would train personnel in year 3. Also in year 1, new facilities would begin complying with the organic HAP emission limit requirements, developing spreadsheets, and entering data as described in section 4( b).

For the burden estimates, it is assumed that new facilities will comply by using the emission rate without add on controls option.

In year 2, the new source from year 1 will submit the notification of compliance status and one semiannual report and the new facility from year 2 would submit all initial notifications. There are no activities in year 2 for existing sources.

In year 3, the new source from year 1 will submit two semiannual reports. The new source from year 2 will submit the notification of compliance status and one semiannual report. The new source from year 3 will submit all initial notifications. In year 3, all existing facilities will plan their compliance method and develop a recordkeeping system including spreadsheets. 15 base labor rate x 1.67 = loaded wage rate Facilities with add on controls would develop a startup,

shutdown, malfunction plan and a work practice plan; submit notification of intent to conduct the performance test; and conduct the initial add on control device performance test.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The EPA expects this regulation to affect 202 existing and 3 new plastic parts and products surface coating facilities over the first 3 years. Tables 1 through 3 present an itemized breakdown of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the respondents affected by these standards.

( b) Estimating Respondent Costs The information collection activities for sources subject to these requirements are presented in tables 1 through 3. The total cost for each respondent activity includes labor costs,

capital/ start up costs, and operating and maintenance ( O& M)

costs.

( i) Estimating Labor Costs. Labor rates, on a per hour basis, are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) web site ( http:// stats. bls. gov/ ecthome. htm) as posted for March 2000.

The base labor rates are $ 27.38 for technical, $ 41.64 for management personnel, $ 17.31 for clerical personnel. The labor rates include fringe benefits, including paid leave, insurance,

etc. The labor rates are also adjusted by an overhead and profit rate of 167 percent. Therefore, the total loaded wage rates are calculated by the following equation: 16 Given the cost overhead adjustments, the final total loaded wage rates are $ 45.74 for technical, $ 69.54 for management personnel,

and $ 28.91 for clerical personnel.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Start up Costs. The EPA does not expect any capital/ start up costs for facilities to add controls.

There are 19 existing facilities with add on controls that will comply with the emission rate with add on controls option.

However, EPA does not anticipate that any other facilities will use add on controls to comply with this subpart. The 19 existing facilities will, however, incur a capital cost of $ 7,000 to purchase enclosure monitoring equipment. This cost is based on a vendor estimate. The EPA assumes all other required monitoring devices will already exist at these facilities. Monitors for the required control device operating parameters are typically purchased with the control device and would already be in use at existing facilities.

For the purpose of this subpart, EPA assumes that each owner or operator owns a computer with spreadsheet software.

( iii) Total O& M and Purchase of Service Costs. The total annual operating and maintenance costs were calculated based on estimated photocopying and postage costs for the various reports.

An estimate of $ 7.50 per report was applied to the numbers of reports submitted each year.

( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

Because ICRs are an incidental part of standards development, no costs can be attributed to the development of ICRs. Because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents are required under section 112 of the CAA, no additional operational costs will be incurred by the Federal Government. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents would occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of EPA's overall compliance 17 and enforcement program and, therefore, cannot be attributable to ICRs.

A list of Agency activities that are attributable to this ICR is provided in tables 5 through 7 ( see attachment 3).

Labor rates for the Federal employees are based on the estimated hourly rates of $ 39.62 for technical personnel ( GS 12,

Step 5); $ 57.92 for management personnel ( GS 15, Step 5); and $ 29.63 for clerical personnel ( GS 7, Step 5). These values include a 1.67 multiplier to account for overhead and fringe benefit costs.

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

The total number of respondents is also referred to as the respondent universe. The respondent universe for this ICR is based on EPA's plastic parts and products surface coating database. The database was populated using responses from a section 114 survey issued in 1998. The industry burden is calculated for 202 existing facilities. Based on U. S. economic census data for representative SIC codes, EPA expects one new facility will be constructed each year. The EPA expects that each new facility will comply by using the emission rate without add on controls option, because this option is more flexible than the compliant material option and because add on controls are generally not applicable to all types of facilities in this source category.

Each existing facility will choose to comply by using one of three options: compliant material option, emission rate without add on controls option, and emission rate with add on controls option. Of the 202 existing facilities, EPA expects 20 percent ( 40 facilities) to use the less burdensome compliant material option because some of the existing facilities are small, use fewer materials, and will be able to use only low or non HAP 18 materials. The remaining 162 existing facilities will choose the emission rate( with or without add on controls) option and will develop a recordkeeping system ( typically a spreadsheet) to track material usages and calculate emissions. Of the 162 facilities using the emission rate ( with or without add on controls) option,

EPA expects 19 to use the emission rate with add on controls option because 19 of the existing facilities already have controls in place. The remaining 143 facilities will use the emission rate without add on controls options to comply. Agency personnel are expected to observe the performance tests at half the existing facilities with add on control devices ( 9 facilities out of 19). No costs are associated with repeat performance tests because facilities will not " fail" the test since they are simply setting a typical control device and capture efficiency to use in compliance calculations.

( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables.

( i) The Respondent Tally. A breakdown for each of the collection, reporting, and recordkeeping activities required by the regulation is presented in tables 1 through 3. The estimate of total annual hours requested from the respondents is based on the assumptions outlined in section 6( d) of this supporting statement. The EPA estimated the respondent burden by totaling the hours for the first 3 years after the implementation of the regulation for technical, managerial, and clerical staff at the facility. This total was then divided by 3 to arrive at the average annualized burden in the first 3 years following promulgation ( see table 4). A similar approach was taken for estimating average annual labor and non labor costs. For the first 3 years after the implementation of the regulation, EPA estimates that industry would expend an average of 42,533 hours annually at a labor cost of $ 1,927,249 per year to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The average annual capital cost is expected to be $ 44,333. The 19 average annual operation and maintenance cost is expected to be $ 655 ( see table 4).

( ii) The Agency Tally. The bottom line agency burden hours and costs, presented in tables 5 through 7, are calculated by totaling the hours per year for technical, managerial, and clerical staff, and by totaling the cost column. Table 8 ( attachment 3) summarizes the agency burden for each of the first 3 years and calculates the average annual burden by dividing the 3 year total by 3. The estimated average annual burden, over the first 3 years, for the Agency would be 1,432 hours at a cost of $ 57,956 per year.

( iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line.

Calculating the average annual costs underestimates costs in a typical year for a NESHAP. Calculating each year individually provides a more accurate account of how facilities will be affected in the first 3 years following promulgation.

During years 1 and 2, there is little burden for existing facilities because existing facilities are not required to begin compliance until year 3. Therefore, the year 3 burden for industry and the government is much higher than years 1 and 2.

( f) Reasons for Change in Burden This is a new collection and there is no change in burden.

( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 210 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 20 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 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0074, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West,

Room B102, 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 ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET 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. Once 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: 21 Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OAR

2002 0074 22 Attachment 1 Source Data and Information Requirements Requirement 40 CFR part 63 RECORDKEEPING 5 year retention of records 63.4531( b)

Copy of each notification and report as submitted and associated documentation 63.4530( a)

Recordkeeping relevant to start up, shutdown, and malfunction periods and continuous monitoring system 63.6( e)( 3)( iii) through ( v)

Copy of information, such as manufacturer's formulation data, used in calculations 63.4530( b), ( e), ( f), ( g)

Copy of all emission rate calculations 63.4530( c)

Record of all coatings used during each compliance period 63.4530( d)

Record of waste materials shipped off site to TSDF 63.4530( h)

Records of continuous compliance with operating limits for add on control 63.4530( k)

Records of deviations 63.4530( j)

General recordkeeping 63.10( b)( 1)

REPORTING Initial notification for existing sources 63.4510( b)

Notification of intent to construct 63.4510( a)

Notification of start construction 63.4510( a)

Notification of anticipated start up date 63.4510( a) Requirement 40 CFR part 63 23 Notification of actual startup date 63.4510( a)

Notification of compliance status 63.4510( c)

Notification of performance test 63.4510( a)

Semi annual compliance report 63.4520( a)

Start up, shutdown, and malfunction plan 63.6( e)( 3) Attachment 2 TABLES 1, 2, 3, and 4 Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Year 1 Table 2: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Year 2 Table 3: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Year 3 Table 4: Summary of Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Years 1 through 3 and Average 1 Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 1  First Year After Promulgation Burden item Plant Hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per plant per year ( B) Plant hours per occurrence per year ( C = A X B) Number of plants per year ( D) Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Managemen t personnel hours per year ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical personnel hours year ( G= Ex0.1) Total Labor Costs ($) h Total Non Labor Costs Footnotes 1. Applications n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 2. Survey and Studies n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 3. Acquire and install recordkeeping technology and systems Included in 5. A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Read and understand rule requirements 30 1 30 203 6090 304.5 609 317,338 b 5. Required activities for all sources, with or without addon controls 0 0 0 0 A. Develop recordkeeping system ( including emission rate calculation spreadsheets) 0 0 0 0 1) Develop system, if using compliant materials option 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) Develop system, if using the emission rate option, with or without add on controls 60 1 60 1 60 3 6 3,126 c, k B. Enter information into recordkeeping system 0 0 0 0 1) Enter information, if using compliant materials option 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) Enter information, if using emission rate option, with or without add on controls 40 1 40 1 40 2 4 2,084 c 6. Additional required activities for sources with add on control devices 0 0 0 0 d A. Initial add on control device and capture system performance tests and report 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Establish operating parameters Included in 6A 0 0 0 0 0 C. Prepare startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and a work practice plan 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Continuous parameter monitoring 0 0 0 0 Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 1  First Year After Promulgation ( Continued)

Burden item Plant Hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per plant per year ( B) Plant hours per occurrence per year ( C = A X B) Number of plants per year ( D) Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Managemen t personnel hours per year ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical personnel hours year ( G= Ex0.1) Total Labor Costs ($) h Total Non Labor Costs Footnotes 2 1) Initial costs 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) Annual costs 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 7. Create Information Included in 5B 0 0 0 0 8. Gather information Included in 5B 0 0 0 0 9. Notification requirements 0 0 0 0 A. Initial notification that existing sources are subject to the standard 2 1 2 202 404 20.2 40 21,052 e B. Notifications for new major sources 0 0 0 0 1) Notification of intent to construct a new major source and application for approval of construction 15 1 15 1 15 0.75 2 782 f 2) Notification of start of construction 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0 104 f 3) Notification of anticipated startup date 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0 104 f 4) Notification of actual startup date 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0 104 f C. Request for compliance extension 8 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 D. Notification of special compliance requirements n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a E. Notification of performance tests 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F. Notification of compliance status 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10. Recordkeeping requirements 0 0 0 0 A. Read instructions Included in 4. 0 0 0 0 0 B. Plan and develop record system Included in 5A. 0 0 0 0 0 C. Record information Included in 5B. 0 0 0 0 0 Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 1  First Year After Promulgation ( Continued)

Burden item Plant Hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per plant per year ( B) Plant hours per occurrence per year ( C = A X B) Number of plants per year ( D) Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Managemen t personnel hours per year ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical personnel hours year ( G= Ex0.1) Total Labor Costs ($) h Total Non Labor Costs Footnotes 3 D. Records for area sources not subject to the standard n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. Reporting requirements 0 0 0 0 1,545 l A. Semiannual compliance reports for all sources 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 j B. Additional reports for sources with add on control devices 0 0 0 0 0 1) Control device and capture system performance test report Included in 6A. 0 0 0 0 0 2) Operating range for monitored parameters Included in 6A. 0 0 0 0 0 3) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. Time to train personnel 400 1 400 1 400 20 40 20,843 g 13. Time for audits n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a TOTAL NON LABOR COST 1,545 TOTAL BURDEN ( SALARY AND NONLABOR COSTS) 367,082 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 7,015 351 702 8,067 a  n/ a means that these activities are not applicable for this NESHAP in the three years after promulgation, although they will occur in subsequent years.

b  this is a one time only cost.

c  assume that new sources will comply using the weighted average option ( one new source per year).

d  it is assumed that only existing sources that already have add on controls will use add on controls. Therefore, this activity will occur for those sources in year 3.

e  based on the plastic parts database which estimates 202 existing affected sources.

f  these activities apply only to new sources. Projection of one new source per year.

g  based on an average number of coating employees per facility of 50 each receiving 8 hours of training.

h  labor costs are based on the loaded hourly wage rates of 45.74 for technical, 69.54 for managerial, and 28.91 for clerical.

j  the hours per occurrence is an average value based on the assumption that most facilities will not have a deviation and will spend less than 8 hours.

Also, most facilities do not have add on controls and will not have to report parameter monitoring.

k  The hours per occurrence is an average value. Some facilities will need less time because they will have extensive usage tracking systems already in place.

Other facilities may need more time if they are using different compliance options for different areas of the facility because the usage tracking will be more involved.

I  operation and maintenance costs include photocopying and postage costs. Approximately $ 7.50 per report to copy and send. 4 Table 2. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 2  Second Year After Promulgation Burden item Plant Hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per plant per year ( B) Plant hours per occurrence per year ( C = A X B) Number of plants per year ( D) Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Manageme nt personnel hours per year ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical personnel hours year ( G= Ex0.1 ) Total Labor Costs ($) g Total Non Labor Costs Footnote s 1. Applications n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 2. Survey and Studies n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 3. Acquire and install recordkeeping technology and systems n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Read and understand rule requirements 30 1 30 1 30 1.5 3 1,563 b 5. Required activities for all sources, with or without add on controls 0 0 0 0 0 A. Develop recordkeeping system ( including emission rate calculation spreadsheets) 0 0 0 0 0 1) Develop system, if using compliant materials option 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) Develop system, if using the emission rate option, with or without add on controls 60 1 60 1 60 3 6 3,126 c, k B. Enter information into recordkeeping system 0 0 0 0 0 1) Enter information, if using compliant materials option 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) Enter information, if using emission rate option, with or without add on controls 40 1 40 2 80 4 8 4,169 c 6. Additional required activities for sources with addon control devices 0 0 0 0 0 d A. Initial add on control device and capture system performance tests and report 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Establish operating parameters Included in 6A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. Prepare startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and a work practice plan 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 2. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 2  Second Year After Promulgation ( Continued)

Burden item Plant Hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per plant per year ( B) Plant hours per occurrence per year ( C = A X B) Number of plants per year ( D) Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Manageme nt personnel hours per year ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical personnel hours year ( G= Ex0.1 ) Total Labor Costs ($) g Total Non Labor Costs Footnote s 5 D. Continuous parameter monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 1) Initial costs 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) Annual costs 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 7. Create Information Included in 5B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Gather information Included in 5B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Notification requirements 0 0 0 0 0 A. Initial notification that existing sources are subject to the standard 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Notifications for new major sources 0 0 0 0 0 1) Notification of intent to construct a new major source and application for approval of construction 15 1 15 1 15 0.75 2 782 e 2) Notification of start of construction 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0 104 e 3) Notification of anticipated startup date 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0 104 e 4) Notification of actual startup date 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0 104 e C. Request for compliance extension 8 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 D. Notification of special compliance requirements n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a E. Notification of performance tests 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F. Notification of compliance status 8 1 8 1 8 0.4 1 417 10. Recordkeeping requirements 0 0 0 0 0 A. Read instructions Included in 4. 0 0 0 0 0 B. Plan and develop record system Included 0 0 0 0 0 Table 2. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 2  Second Year After Promulgation ( Continued)

Burden item Plant Hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per plant per year ( B) Plant hours per occurrence per year ( C = A X B) Number of plants per year ( D) Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Manageme nt personnel hours per year ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical personnel hours year ( G= Ex0.1 ) Total Labor Costs ($) g Total Non Labor Costs Footnote s 6 in 5A.

C. Record information Included in 5B. 0 0 0 0 0 D. Records for area sources not subject to the standard n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. Reporting requirements 0 0 0 0 0 45 l A. Semiannual compliance reports for all sources 8 1 8 1 8 0.4 1 417 j B. Additional reports for sources with add on control devices 0 0 0 0 0 1) Control device and capture system performance test report Included in 6A. 0 0 0 0 0 2) Operating range for monitored parameters Included in 6A. 0 0 0 0 0 3) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. Time to train personnel 400 1 400 1 400 20 40 20,843 f 13. Time for audits n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a TOTAL NON LABOR COST 45 TOTAL BURDEN ( SALARY AND NON LABOR COSTS) 31,675 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 607 30 61 698 a  n/ a means that these activities are not applicable for this NESHAP in the three years after promulgation, although they will occur in subsequent years.

b  this is a one time only cost c  assume that new sources will comply using the weighted average option ( one new source per year)

d  it is assumed that only existing sources that already have add on controls will use add on controls. Therefore, this activity will occur for those sources in year 3 e  these activities apply only to new sources. Projection of one new source per year f  based on an average number of coating employees per facility of 50 each receiving 8 hours of training g  labor costs are based on the loaded hourly wage rates of 45.74 for technical, 69.54 for managerial, and 28.91 for clerical Table 2. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 2  Second Year After Promulgation ( Continued)

7 j  the hours per occurrence is an average value based on the assumption that most facilities will not have a deviation and will spend less than 8 hours.

Also, most facilities do not have add on controls and will not have to report parameter monitoring.

k  The hours per occurrence is an average value. Some facilities will need less time because they will have extensive usage tracking systems already in place.

Other facilities may need more time if they are using different compliance options for different areas of the facility because the usage tracking will be more involved.

I  operation and maintenance costs include photocopying and postage costs. Approximately $ 7.50 per report to copy and send. 8 Table 3. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 3  Third Year After Promulgation Burden item Plant Hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrenc es per plant per year ( B) Plant hours per occurrence per year ( C = A X B) Number of plants per year ( D) Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Management personnel hours per year ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical personnel hours year ( G= Ex0.1) Total Labor Costs ($) g Total Non Labor Costs Footnote s 1. Applications n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 2. Survey and Studies n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 3. Acquire and install recordkeeping technology and systems n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Read and understand rule requirements 30 1 30 1 30 1.5 3 1,563 b 5. Required activities for all sources, with or without add on controls 0 0 0 0 0 A. Develop recordkeeping system ( including emission rate calculation spreadsheets) 0 0 0 0 0 1) Develop system, if using compliant materials option 25 1 25 40 1000 50 100 52,108 c 2) Develop system, if using the emission rate option, with or without add on controls 60 1 60 163 9756 487.8 976 508,366 c, k B. Enter information into recordkeeping system 0 0 0 0 0 1) Enter information, if using compliant materials option 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) Enter information, if using emission rate option, with or without add on controls 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Additional required activities for sources with add on control devices 0 0 0 0 0 d A. Initial add on control device and capture system performance tests and report 500 1 500 19 9500 475 950 495,026 B. Establish operating parameters Included in 6A 0 19 0 0 0 0 C. Prepare startup, shutdown, and malfunction 80 1 80 19 1520 76 152 79,204 Table 3. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 3  Third Year After Promulgation ( Continued)

Burden item Plant Hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrenc es per plant per year ( B) Plant hours per occurrence per year ( C = A X B) Number of plants per year ( D) Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Management personnel hours per year ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical personnel hours year ( G= Ex0.1) Total Labor Costs ($) g Total Non Labor Costs Footnote s 9 plan and a work practice plan D. Continuous parameter monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 1) Initial costs 0 1 0 19 0 0 0 0 133,000 h 2) Annual costs 10 1 10 19 190 9.5 19 9,901 a 7. Create Information Included in 5B 0 0 0 0 0 8. Gather information Included in 5B 0 0 0 0 0 9. Notification requirements 0 0 0 0 0 A. Initial notification that existing sources are subject to the standard 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Notifications for new major sources 0 0 0 0 0 1) Notification of intent to construct a new major source and application for approval of construction 15 1 15 1 15 0.75 2 782 e 2) Notification of start of construction 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0 104 e 3) Notification of anticipated startup date 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0 104 e 4) Notification of actual startup date 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0 104 e C. Request for compliance extension 8 1 8 4 32 1.6 3 1,667 D. Notification of special compliance requirements n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a E. Notification of performance tests 2 1 2 19 38 1.9 4 1,980 d F. Notification of compliance status 8 1 8 2 16 0.8 2 834 10. Recordkeeping requirements 0 0 0 0 0 A. Read instructions Included in 4. 0 0 0 0 0 B. Plan and develop record system Included in 5A. 0 0 0 0 0 Table 3. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 3  Third Year After Promulgation ( Continued)

Burden item Plant Hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrenc es per plant per year ( B) Plant hours per occurrence per year ( C = A X B) Number of plants per year ( D) Technical personnel hours per year ( E= CxD) Management personnel hours per year ( F= Ex0.05) Clerical personnel hours year ( G= Ex0.1) Total Labor Costs ($) g Total Non Labor Costs Footnote s 10 C. Record information Included in 5B. 0 0 0 0 0 D. Records for area sources not subject to the standard n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. Reporting requirements 0 0 0 0 0 375 A. Semiannual compliance reports for all sources 8 2 16 2 32 1.6 3 1,667 j B. Additional reports for sources with add on control devices 0 0 0 0 0 1) Control device and capture system performance test report Included in 6A. 0 0 0 0 0 2) Operating range for monitored parameters Included in 6A. 0 0 0 0 0 3) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. Time to train personnel 400 1 400 203 81200 4060 8,120 4,231,170 f 13. Time for audits n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL NON LABOR COST 133,375 TOTAL BURDEN ( SALARY AND NON LABOR COSTS) 5,517,955 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 103,335 5,167 10,334 118,835 a  n/ a means that these activities are not applicable for this NESHAP in the three years after promulgation, although they will occur in subsequent years.

b  this is a one time only cost c  assume that new sources will comply using the weighted average option ( one new source per year)

assume that 20 percent of existing sources comply using the low/ no HAP option and the rest use the weighted average option d  it is assumed that only existing sources that already have add on controls will use add on controls. Therefore, this activity will occur for those sources in year 3 e  these activities apply only to new sources. Projection of one new source per year f  based on an average number of coating employees per facility of 50 each receiving 8 hours of training g  labor costs are based on the loaded hourly wage rates of 45.74 for technical, 69.54 for managerial, and 28.91 for clerical h  this non labor cost is based on a $ 7,000 per unit cost for each of the 19 existing facilities with add on controls to install enclosure system monitoring.

j  the hours per occurrence is an average value based on the assumption that most facilities will not have a deviation and will spend less than 8 hours. Also, most facilities do not have add on controls and will not have to report parameter monitoring.

k  The hours per occurrence is an average value. Some facilities will need less time because they will have extensive usage tracking systems already in place.

Other facilities may need more time if they are using different compliance options for different areas of the facility because the usage tracking will be more involved. Table 3. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 3  Third Year After Promulgation ( Continued)

11 l  operation and maintenance costs include photocopying and postage costs. Approximately $ 7.50 per report to copy and send. 12 Table 4. Summary of Industry Burden for the Standards for Surface Coating Of Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP Subpart PPPP ( Years 1 Through 3 and Average)

Non Labor Costs Year Technical Hours Management Hours Clerical Hours Total Hours Labor Costs Capital Costs O& M Costs Total Costs Year 1 7,015 351 702 8,067 365,537 0 1,545 367,082 Year 2 607 30 61 698 31,630 0 45 31,675 Year 3 103,335 5,167 10,334 118,835 5,384,580 133,000 375 5,517,955 Average Burden 42,533 1,927,249 44,333 655 1,972,237 Attachment 3 TABLES 5, 6, 7, AND 8 Table 5: Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Standard of Performance for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Year 1 Table 6: Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Standard of Performance for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Year 2 Table 7: Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Standard of Performance for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Year 3 Table 8: Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Standard of Performance for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Years 1 through 3 and Average 1 Table 5. Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 1  First Year After Promulgation Burden Item EPA hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per year ( B) EPA hours per occurrence per year ( C= AxB) Technical hours per year ( D= C) Mangmt hours per year ( E= Dx0.05) Clerical hours per year ( F= Dx0.1) ( H) Costs,

$ f Footnotes 1. Litigation n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 2. Read and understand rule requirements 30 50 1500 1500 75 150 68,219 b 3. Enter and update information into agency recordkeeping system 4 1 4 4 0.2 0.4 182 4. Required activities for sources with add on control devices 0 0 0 0 0 c A. Observe initial add on control device performance test 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Observe repeat performance test 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. Review operating parameters 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Review continuous parameter monitoring 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Excess Emissions Enforcement Activities and inspections n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Notification requirements 0 0 0 0 0 A. Review initial notification that existing sources are subject to the standard 2 202 404 404 20.2 40.4 18,374 d B. Notifications for new major sources 0 0 0 0 0 1) Review notification of intent to construct a new major source and review application to construct 5 1 5 5 0.25 0.5 227 e 2) Review notification of start of construction 2 1 2 2 0.1 0.2 91 e 3) Review notification of anticipated startup date 2 1 2 2 0.1 0.2 91 e 4) Review notification of actual startup date 2 1 2 2 0.1 0.2 91 e C. Review request for compliance extension 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Review notification of special compliance requirements n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a E. Review notification of initial performance tests and 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 c Table 5. Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 1  First Year After Promulgation ( Continued)

Burden Item EPA hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per year ( B) EPA hours per occurrence per year ( C= AxB) Technical hours per year ( D= C) Mangmt hours per year ( E= Dx0.05) Clerical hours per year ( F= Dx0.1) ( H) Costs,

$ f Footnotes 2 review test plan F. Review notification of compliance status 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 G. Records for area sources not subject to the standard n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 H. Review of NESHAP waiver application n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 7. Reporting requirements 0 0 0 0 0 A. Review semiannual compliance report n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Additional reports for sources with add on control devices 0 0 0 0 0 c 1) Review of control device performance test report and operating range 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) Review startup, shutdown, malfunction plans and work practice plans 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Travel Expenses for Tests Attended c TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) 87,274 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 2,207 a  n/ a means that these activities are not applicable for this NESHAP in the three years after promulgation, although they will occur in subsequent years b  this is a one time only cost c  it is assumed that only existing sources that already have add on controls will use add on controls. Therefore, this activity will occur for those sources in year 3.

d  based on the plastic parts database which estimates 202 existing sources e  these activities apply only to new sources. Projection of one new source per year f  labor costs for agency personnel are based on the loaded hourly wage rates of 39.62 for technical, 57.92 for managerial, and 29.63 for clerical 3 Table 6. Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 2  Second Year After Promulgation Burden Item EPA hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per year ( B) EPA hours per occurrence per year ( C= AxB) Technical hours per year ( D= C) Management hours per year ( E= Dx0.05) Clerical hours per year ( F= Dx0.1) ( H) Costs,

$ e Footnotes 1. Litigation n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 2. Read and understand rule requirements 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 3. Enter and update information into agency recordkeeping system 4 203 812 812 40.6 81.2 36,929 4. Required activities for sources with add on control devices 0 0 0 0 0 c A. Observe initial add on control device performance test 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Observe repeat performance test 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. Review operating parameters 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Review continuous parameter monitoring 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Excess Emissions Enforcement Activities and inspections n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Notification requirements 0 0 0 0 0 A. Review initial notification that existing sources are subject to the standard 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Notifications for new major sources 0 0 0 0 0 1) Review notification of intent to construct a new major source and review application to construct 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 d 2) Review notification of start of construction 2 1 2 2 0.1 0.2 91 d 3) Review notification of anticipated startup date 2 1 2 2 0.1 0.2 91 d 4) Review notification of actual startup date 2 1 2 2 0.1 0.2 91 d C. Review request for compliance extension 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Review notification of special compliance requirements n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a E. Review notification of initial performance tests and review test plan 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 c F. Review notification of compliance status 4 1 4 4 0.2 0.4 182 G. Records for area sources not subject to the standard n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 H. Review of NESHAP waiver application n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 7. Reporting requirements 0 0 0 0 0 A. Review semiannual compliance report 8 1 8 8 0.4 0.8 364 Table 6. Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 2  Second Year After Promulgation ( Continued)

Burden Item EPA hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per year ( B) EPA hours per occurrence per year ( C= AxB) Technical hours per year ( D= C) Management hours per year ( E= Dx0.05) Clerical hours per year ( F= Dx0.1) ( H) Costs,

$ e Footnotes 4 B. Additional reports for sources with add on control devices 0 0 0 0 0 c 1) Review of control device performance test report and operating range 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) Review startup, shutdown, malfunction plans and work practice plans 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Travel Expenses for Tests Attended 0 c TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) 37,748 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 955 a  n/ a means that these activities are not applicable for this NESHAP in the three years after promulgation, although they will occur in subsequent years.

b  this is a one time only cost.

c  it is assumed that only existing sources that already have add on controls will use add on controls. Therefore, this activity will occur for those sources in year 3.

d  these activities apply only to new sources. Projection of one new source per year.

e  labor costs for agency personnel are based on the loaded hourly wage rates of 39.62 for technical, 57.92 for managerial, and 29.63 for clerical. 5 Table 7. Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 3  Third Year After Promulgation Burden Item EPA hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per year ( B) EPA hours per occurrence per year ( C= AxB) Technical hours per year ( D= C) Mangmt hours per year ( E= Dx0.0 5) Clerical hours per year ( F= Dx0.

1) ( H) Costs,

$ e Footnotes 1. Litigation n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 2. Read and understand rule requirements 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 3. Enter and update information into agency recordkeeping system 4 1 4 4 0.2 0.4 182 4. Required activities for sources with add on control devices 0 0 0 0 0 c A. Observe initial add on control device performance test 40 9 360 360 18 36 16,372 B. Observe repeat performance test 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. Review operating parameters 2 19 38 38 1.9 3.8 1,728 D. Review continuous parameter monitoring 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Excess Emissions Enforcement Activities and inspections n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Notification requirements 0 0 0 0 0 A. Review initial notification that existing sources are subject to the standard 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Notifications for new major sources 0 0 0 0 0 1) Review notification of intent to construct a new major source and review application to construct 5 1 5 5 0.25 0.5 227 d 2) Review notification of start of construction 2 1 2 2 0.1 0.2 91 d 3) Review notification of anticipated startup date 2 1 2 2 0.1 0.2 91 d 4) Review notification of actual startup date 2 1 2 2 0.1 0.2 91 d C. Review request for compliance extension 4 3 12 12 0.6 1.2 546 D. Review notification of special compliance requirements n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a E. Review notification of initial performance tests and review test plan 20 19 380 380 19 38 17,282 c F. Review notification of compliance status 4 1 4 4 0.2 0.4 182 G. Records for area sources not subject to the standard n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 H. Review of NESHAP waiver application n/ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Table 7. Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP Subpart PPPP Year 3  Third Year After Promulgation ( Continued)

Burden Item EPA hours per occurrence ( A) Number of occurrences per year ( B) EPA hours per occurrence per year ( C= AxB) Technical hours per year ( D= C) Mangmt hours per year ( E= Dx0.0 5) Clerical hours per year ( F= Dx0.

1) ( H) Costs,

$ e Footnotes 6 7. Reporting requirements 0 0 0 0 0 A. Review semiannual compliance report 8 3 24 24 1.2 2.4 1,091 B. Additional reports for sources with add on control devices 0 0 0 0 0 1) Review of control device performance test report and operating range 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) Review startup, shutdown, malfunction plans and work practice plans 8 19 152 152 7.6 15.2 6,913 8. Travel Expenses for Tests Attended ( 1 person x 9 plants/ year 3 x 1 day/ plant x $ 50 per diem) + ($ 400/ round trip x 9 trips/ year 3) = $ 4050 in year 3 4,050 c TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) 48,847 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 1133 a  n/ a means that these activities are not applicable for this NESHAP in the three years after promulgation, although they will occur in subsequent years.

b  this is a one time only cost.

c  it is assumed that only existing sources that already have add on controls will use add on controls. Therefore, this activity will occur for those sources in year 3.

d  these activities apply only to new sources. Projection of one new source per year.

e  labor costs for agency personnel are based on the loaded hourly wage rates of 39.62 for technical, 57.92 for managerial, and 29.63 for clerical. 7 Table 8. Summary of Federal Government Burden for the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP  Subpart PPPP ( Years 1 Through 3 and Average)

Agency Burden Summary Technical Hours Management Hours Clerical Hours Total Hours Total Costs Year 1 1,919 96 192 2,207 87,274 Year 2 830 42 83 955 37,748 Year 3 985 49 99 1,133 48,847 Average Burden 1,432 57,956


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17658-17659]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07134]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9960-98-ORD]

Human Studies Review Board; Notification of Public Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of the
Science Advisor announces two separate public meetings of the Human
Studies Review Board (HSRB) to advise the Agency on the ethical and
scientific review of research involving human subjects.

DATES: A virtual public meeting will be held on Thursday, April 27,
2017, from 1:00 p.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. A
separate, subsequent teleconference meeting is planned for Friday, June
9, 2017, from 2:00 p.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for the
HSRB to finalize its Final Report of the April 27, 2017 meeting and
review other possible topics.

ADDRESSES: Both of these meetings will be conducted entirely by
telephone and on the Internet using Adobe Connect. For detailed access
information visit the HSRB Web site: http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wishes to
receive further information should contact the HSRB Designated Federal
Official (DFO), Jim Downing on telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or mailing
address: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Science
Advisor, Mail code 8105R, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Meeting access: These meetings are open to the public. The full
Agenda and meeting materials are available at the HSRB Web site: http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board. For questions on document
availability, or if you do not have access to the Internet, consult
with the DFO, Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time
as possible to process your request.

How may I participate in this meeting?

    The HSRB encourages the public's input. You may participate in
these meetings by following the instructions in this section.
    1. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments during either
meeting will be accepted up to Noon Eastern Time on Thursday, April 20,
2017, for the April 27, 2017 meeting and up to Noon Eastern Time on
Friday, June 2, 2017 for the June 9, 2017 teleconference.

To the extent that time permits, interested persons who have not pre-
registered may be permitted by the HSRB Chair to present oral comments
during either meeting at the designated time on the agenda. Oral
comments before the HSRB are generally limited to five minutes per
individual or organization. If additional time is available, further
public comments may be possible.
    2. Written comments. Submit your written comments prior to the
meetings. For the Board to have the best opportunity to review and
consider your comments as it deliberates, you should submit your
comments by Noon Eastern Time on Thursday, April 20, 2016, for the
April 27, 2017 meeting, and by noon Eastern Time on Friday, June 2,
2017 for the June 9, 2017 teleconference. If you submit comments after
these dates, those comments will be provided to the HSRB members, but
you should recognize that the HSRB members may not have adequate time
to consider your comments prior to their discussion. You should submit
your comments to the DFO, Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no limit on the length of written
comments for consideration by the HSRB.

Background

    The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Sec.  9. The
HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations on issues
related to scientific and ethical aspects of third-party human subjects
research that are submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
to be used for regulatory purposes.
    Topic for discussion. On Thursday, April 27, 2017, EPA's Human
Studies Review Board will consider a couple of questions from OPP about
mosquito repellency testing.
    The Agenda and meeting materials for this topic will be available
in advance of the meeting at http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.
    On June 9, 2017, the Human Studies Review Board will review and
finalize their draft Final Report from the April 27, 2017 meeting, in
addition to other topics that may come before the Board. The HSRB may
also discuss planning for future HSRB meetings. The agenda and the
draft report will be available prior to the teleconference at http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.
    Meeting minutes and final reports. Minutes of these meetings,
summarizing the matters discussed and recommendations made by the HSRB,
will be released within 90 calendar days of the meeting. These minutes
will be available at http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board. In addition, information regarding the HSRB's Final Report, will
be found at http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board or from
Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Robert J. Kavlock,
Acting EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2017-07134 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 171)]
[Notices]
[Page 50952-50953]
[DOCID:fr05se07-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

August 28, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC07-116-001.
    Applicants: KGen Acquisition I, LLC; KGEN Power Corporation; KGen
Partners, LLC; LSP Energy Limited Partnership; La Paloma Generating
Company, LLC.
    Description: KGen Power Corp et al. submit an amendment to the 7/
13/07 filing of a joint application for authorization and the
acquisition of La Paloma Generating Co, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070824-0119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 4, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER07-940-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.;
PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Midwest Independent System Operator Inc and submit PJM
Interconnection LLC submit its proposed revisions to section 4 of the
Congestion Management Process of their Joint Operating Agreement.
    Filed Date: 08/23/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070827-0031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 13, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1099-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool Inc submits as Exhibit I a clean
copy of the 6/29/07 filing with the proper designations.
    Filed Date: 08/23/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070827-0028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 13, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1300-000.
    Applicants: Reliant Energy Solutions Northeast, LLC.
    Description: Reliant Energy Solutions Northeast LLC submits an
application for an order accepting rates for filing and for certain
waivers and blanket approvals.

    Filed Date: 08/23/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070827-0029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 13, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1301-000.
    Applicants: Elwood Energy, LLC.
    Description: Elwood Energy LLC submits its Rate Schedule FERC 2,
its revenue requirement for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from
Generation Sources Service supplied by its generation facilities.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070827-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 14, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:
    Docket Numbers: RR07-15-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.
    Description: Request of The North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Amended and Restated Bylaws Of Northeast
Power Coordinating Council, Inc., and for substitution of Northeast
Power Coordinating Council, Inc. as a regional entity.
    Filed Date: 08/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070821-5032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 20, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-17443 Filed 9-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement, and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation/ Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards 2. OMB control number b. G None a. _ 2_ _ 0_ _ 6_ _ 0_  _ 0_ _ 2_ _ 6_ _ 4_ ___ ___ ___ ___

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. x Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement instructions 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: ______/______/______ c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No 6. Requested expiration date a. x Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: ____/____

7. Title Application Requirements for the Approval and Delegation of Federal Air Toxics Programs to State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Agencies ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( if applicable) EPA ICR 1643.05 9. Keywords Air Toxics, Delegation, State Agencies, Local Agencies, Tribal Governments 10. Abstract The 40 CFR part 63, subpart E regulations offer five options for State, territorial, local, and tribal agencies ( S/ L/ Ts) to accept delegation of the section 112 standards. The S/ LT must demonstrate to the EPA that it has the ability to implement the Federal standards in an effective manner.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. ___ Individuals or households d.___ Farms b. ___ Business or other for profit e.___ Federal Government c. ___ Not for profit institutions f. _ P State, Local, or Tribal Governments 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. X Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents _____________ 124_________________ b. Total annual responses ____________ 1,008_________________ 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically ______________ 0____________________% c. Total annual hours requested ___________ 41,577___________________ d. Current OMB inventory _________ 137,549___________________ e. Difference __________ 95,972____________________ f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change _______________ 0___________________ 2. Adjustment __________ 95,972___________________ 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs ________ 0_________________ b. Total annual costs ( O& M) ____________ 26______________ c. Total annualized cost requested ____________ 26________________ d. Current OMB inventory ____________ 0___________________ e. Difference ____________ 26_______________ f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change ________________ 0__________________ 2. Adjustment ______________ 26________________

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. ____ Application for benefits e. ____ Program planning or management b. ____ Program evaluation f. ____ Research c. ____ General purpose statistics g. _ P_ Regulatory or compliance d. ____ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. G Recordkeeping b. G Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. G On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5. G Semi annually 6. G Annually 7. G Biennially 8. X Other ( describe) One Time/ Voluntary 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

G Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer question regarding the content of this submission)

Name: Jeff Whitlow, USEPA/ OAQPS Phone: 919/ 541 5523 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8 ( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8 ( b)( 3):

( I) Why the information is being collected;

( ii) Use of information;

( iii) Burden estimate;

( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);

( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective manage ment and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Office Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Director, Regulatory Information Division Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95