[Federal Register: July 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 126)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38061-38064]
[DOCID:fr01jy10-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0644; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-204-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-600 Series
Airplanes; Model A300 B4-600R Series Airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R
Variant F Airplanes; and Model A300 F4-600R Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Within the framework of the A300-600 aircraft Service Life
Extension programme (42 500 FC [flight cycles]), it has been
concluded that a reinforcement of the junction of frame bases at
FR48, FR49 and FR51 to FR53 is necessary to enable the aircraft to
reach the Extended Service Goal (ESG).

    * * * [Failure of the frame base], if not corrected, could
affect the structural integrity of the fuselage.
* * * * *
The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS-EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0644;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-204-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0188, dated August 26, 2009 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Within the framework of the A300-600 aircraft Service Life
Extension programme (42 500 FC [flight cycles]), it has been
concluded that a reinforcement of the junction of frame bases at
FR48, FR49 and FR51 to FR53 is necessary to enable the aircraft to
reach the Extended Service Goal (ESG).
    * * * [Failure of the frame base], if not corrected, could
affect the structural integrity of the fuselage.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires the
reinforcement of the affected junction of frame bases.

Required actions include doing a dimensional measurement of the holes,
and doing corrective actions if necessary; doing an eddy current
inspection of the holes for cracking, and doing corrective actions if
necessary; and doing cold expansion of the holes and installing
fasteners. Corrective actions include contacting Airbus for repair
instructions and doing the repair. You may obtain further information
by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-53-6161, Revision
02, including Appendix 01, dated October 16, 2009. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 122 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 81 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $12,300 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $2,340,570, or $19,185 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2010-0644; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-
204-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 16, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620,
B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F; Model F4-
605R and F4-622R airplanes; certificated in any category; on which
modification 12699 has not been completed.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Within the framework of the A300-600 aircraft Service Life
Extension programme (42 500 FC), it has been concluded that a
reinforcement of the junction of frame bases at FR48, FR49 and FR51
to FR53 is necessary to enable the aircraft to reach the Extended
Service Goal (ESG).
    * * * [Failure of the frame base], if not corrected, could
affect the structural integrity of the fuselage.
* * * * *

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Except for airplanes identified in paragraph (h) of this AD:
At the time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as
applicable, reinforce the junctions of frame bases FR48, FR49, FR51,
FR52 and FR53, which includes doing a dimensional measurement of the
holes, doing an eddy current inspection of the holes for cracking,
doing a cold expansion of the holes, installing fasteners, and doing
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-53-6161,
Revision 02, dated October 16, 2009. If cracking is found, before
further flight, contact Airbus for repair instructions and do the
repair.
    (1) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification No. 03986 has
been accomplished as of the effective date of this AD: Before the
accumulation of 37,600 total flight cycles.
    (2) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification No. 03986 has not
been accomplished as of the effective date of this AD: Before the
accumulation of 28,900 total flight cycles.
    (h) For airplanes modified prior to the effective date of this
AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-53-6161, dated February 13, 2009; or
Revision 01, dated June 24, 2009: Within 10 days after the effective
date of this AD, prior to doing any cold working process, determine
if an eddy current inspection for cracking has been done, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-53-6161, Revision 02, dated October 16, 2009.
If the eddy current inspection has not been done, or it cannot be
proven that it has been done, before further flight, contact Airbus
for instructions and accomplish those instructions.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal
avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal
inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0188, dated August 26, 2009; and Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-53-6161, Revision 02, dated October
16, 2009; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 23, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-15982 Filed 6-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 26, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1999-5571

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AEREOSABA, S.A. de C.V.
                                     Date Filed:  February 7, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  February 14, 2002, in
this Docket.

Applicant representative:  Lorainne B. Halloway,<PHONE_NUMBER>
DOT analyst:  Allen Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved
                                               Action date:  February
26, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  February 26, 2003, through
February 26, 2004

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

     X  Standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


From:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, June 8, 2020 3:50 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Re: [EXT] EPA comments on QA file-AKS-Middletown

Dr Jones,

See attached spreadsheet and test report (previously submitted).  On tab "QA Questions for Facility" we added our responses in column E.  Most of the data that EPA flagged as not matching the test report we found that it does match the test report.  We added in column "BM" on tab "A-1. Air Stack Tests" and noted the page # where we reviewed the data and also attached the referenced test report.  Please take a look and let us know if you agree with our corrected responses, or if you are looking at some other source of data?  Please email or call with questions.  Thanks!

Katie Kistler
Environmental Manager of Air Programs
AK Steel Corporate Office
513-425-2972 Phone
513-519-9822 Cell

<< Coke Oven Battery USEPA ICR Report.pdf >>
<< 2020_EPAReview_AKS-Middletown-OH_IndustryQA_CokeOvens-Enclosure2_EPA-Questions 6.08.20 Response.xlsx >>

From:        "Jones, DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:        "Raymond, Gabrielle"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date:        05/08/2020 07:10 PM
Subject:        [EXT] EPA comments on QA file-AKS-Middletown

Hello Katie and Chris,

Thank you for providing missing data and also for reviewing and correcting responses for the Coke Oven Enclosure 2 Middletown, OH data.

We have reviewed your QA revisions and have a few questions.
Please see the `Questions for Facility' Tab in the attached file, which is the QA file you sent me with added EPA comments.

We have specific comments in Column BL of the `A-1. Air Stack Tests' tab. Please review these comments and provide the reason/rationale/equation for changes to concentration and emission rate values in Column BJ of the `A-1. Air Stack Tests' tab.

In Columns BO and BS we have calculated the percent difference from the original reported value to the industry revised values. Please provide reason/rationale/equation for changes in data that have >5% differences (in RED highlight).

In response to your note about certain rows being duplicates of D/F values, these are not duplicates but the calculated toxicity equivalence (TEQ) values. They were calculated by multiplying each individual D/F congener by the appropriate Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEF) value. See the calculations in the `A-3 DF TEQ' tab.

The dioxin/furan concentration and emission rate values in the `A-3 DF TEQ' tab were calculated starting with the laboratory reported mass values. Those values were then copied ("paste special" for values only, no algorithms), into the main `A-1. Air Stack Tests' tab for industry review. You can review the `A-3 DF TEQ' tab for any errors that need to be updated.

Please review this file and provide your comments back to me by June 8, 2020. If you have any problems or need more explanation, let me know by email.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 17, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9893-9894]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03169]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 281

[EPA-R05-UST-2020-0685; FRL-10020-06-Region 5]

Indiana: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program
Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA
or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to take
direct final action to approve revisions to the State of Indiana's
Underground Storage Tank (UST) program submitted by the State. This
action is based on EPA's determination that the State's revisions
satisfy all requirements needed for UST program approval. In the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the changes by direct final rule because we believe this
action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it.

DATES: Send written comments by March 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R05-UST-2020-0685 by
one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-UST-
2020-0685. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov, or email. The federal https://www.regulations.gov
website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA
without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties, and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    EPA encourages electronic submittals, but if you are unable to
submit electronically, please reach out to EPA contact person listed in
the notice for assistance with additional submission methods.
    You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this
action and associated publicly available materials through
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Kamke, Environmental Engineer,
Corrective Action Section #3, Remediation Branch (LR-17J), EPA Region
5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Out of an abundance of caution for members of the
public and our staff, the EPA Region 5 office will be closed to the
public to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov or via email.
Please call or email the contact listed above if you need alternative
means to access the material provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's UST program submittal as a
direct rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn, and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. For additional information, see the direct final rule
published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register.

    Authority: This rule is issued under the authority of Sections
2002(a), 9004, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.

    Dated: February 9, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2021-03169 Filed 2-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


SF-83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

	1(a) Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM) (Renewal)

	1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

	The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication were proposed on August 8, 2001 (66 FR 41729), and promulgated on April 14, 2003 (68 FR 18062).  These regulations apply to each existing, new, or reconstructed affected source at facilities engaged in flexible polyurethane foam fabrication.  For the purpose of the rule, flexible polyurethane foam fabrication is further divided in the following two subcategories: 1) loop slitter adhesive use, and 2) flame lamination.  This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM.

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

	Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.

	Based on our consultations with industry representatives, there is an average of one affected facility at each plant site, and each plant site has only one respondent (i.e., the owner/operator of the plant site).

	An average of 11 respondents will be subject to the regulation over the period covered by this ICR.  It is estimated that one additional respondent per year will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.  Flexible polyurethane foam fabrication is divided into two subcategories: 1) loop slitter adhesive use, and 2) flame lamination.  All of the nine respondents are flame lamination sources, with an anticipation of one additional respondent per year over the

three years of this ICR.  There is no loop slitter facility that would be subject to the regulation.  Over the next three years, the average number of respondents will be eleven.

	The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the current Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

	2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants.  These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.  In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner/operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports;

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

In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter emissions from facilities in flexible polyurethane foam fabrication cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NESHAP were promulgated for the source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM.

	2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure compliance with the applicable regulations which were promulgated in accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.  Continuous emission monitors are used to

ensure compliance with the standard at all times.  During the performance test, a record of the

operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded and used to

determine compliance in place of a continuous emission monitor.

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

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

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

	The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM.

	3(a) Nonduplication

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

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

	An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 24020) on May 6, 2005.  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

	3(c) Consultations

	For the information collection, we referenced the most recent ICR, consulted with the preparer of the active ICR, and used other resources to obtain the most recent data available.  We reviewed information available from the United States Census Bureau, the Air Facility System

(AFS), and websites covering flexible polyurethane foam fabrication.  We also consulted with the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division, and the Alliance for the Polyurethanes Industry (API), Stephanie Bernard, and<PHONE_NUMBER>.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that

facilities are continuing to meet the standards.  Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and that emission limitations are met.  If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

	3(e) General Guidelines

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

	These standards require the respondents to maintain all records, including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent with the part 70 permit program and the five year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based.  The retention of records for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a source and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the appropriate level of enforcement action.  Historically, EPA has found that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending beyond the five years.  EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of records if records were retained for less than five years

	3(f) Confidentiality

	Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B - Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 3999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

	3(g) Sensitive Questions

	None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

	4(a) Respondents/SIC Codes

	The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are flexible

for the respondents affected by the standards is SIC 3086, which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 326150 for “Urethane and Other Foam Products (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing.”

4(b) Information Requested

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

		(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that are recorded and/or reported are required by NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM).

	A source must make the following reports:

Notifications	Standard Citation by Sections

Initial notification	63.9(b), 63.8816(b)

Notification of construction/reconstruction	63.9(b)(1)(iii), 63.8816.(c)

Notification of performance test	63.9(e), 63.8816(d)

Notification of compliance status	63.9(h)(2)(ii), 63.8816(e)

First compliance report	63.8818(b)(1)

Semiannual compliance report	63.8818(b)(3)

Annual compliance report	63.8818(c)

SSM report	63.10(d)(5)(i), 63.8818(f)(1)

	A source must make the following reports:

Recordkeeping

Record of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions	63.10(b)(1), 63.8820(a)

Records are required to be retained for five years	63.10(b)(2)

Electronic Reporting

	At the present, respondents are using monitoring equipment that automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the affected facility must evaluate the data, this internal automation has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping at the plant site.

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

		(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 311 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

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

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

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using automated monitoring equipment that provides parameter data.  Although personnel at the sources need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

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

	5(a) Agency Activities

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

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

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

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

	Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and

published for use in compliance and enforcement programs

	Information contained in the reports is entered into the 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.

	The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner/operator for five years.

	5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

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

	5(d) Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMMMM).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

	Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to this information collection are mandatory.  The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection

of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 12,303 (Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of this

regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

	6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

		(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

	This ICR uses the following labor rates:

		Managerial	$97.46   ($46.41 + 110%)

		Technical	$83.71   ($39.86 + 110%)

		Clerical	$42.55   ($20.26 + 110%)

	These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, “Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

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

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

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

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

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device

(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent

(C)

Number of New Respondents

(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost,

(B X C)

(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent

(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M

(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Differential pressure, pH, liquid flow rate, data recorder

$997

1

$997

$1,674

1

$1,674

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $997.  This is the total of column D in the above table.  These costs are shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 14(a), Total annualized capital/startup costs.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are $1,674.  This is the total of column G.  These costs are shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 14(b), Total annual costs (O&M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs.  The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $3,000.  This cost is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 14(c), Total annualized cost requested.  The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83-I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

	6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

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

	The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $58,836.  This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$56.02   (GS-13, Step 5, $35.01 x 1.6)

		Technical	$41.57   (GS-12, Step 1, $25.98 x 1.6)

		Clerical	$22.50   (GS-6, Step 3, $14.06 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2005 General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMMMM).

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

	Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three years, approximately 11 existing respondents will be subject to the standard.  It is estimated that one additional respondent per year will become subject.  The overall average number of respondents, as shown in the table below is 11 per year.

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

Number of Respondents

Respondents That Submit Reports

Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports

Year

(A)

Number of New Respondents

(B)

Number of Existing Respondents

(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports

(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents

(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	1	9	0	0	10

2	1	10	0	0	11

3	1	11	0	0	12

Average	1	10	0	0	11

	To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of this ICR is 11.  This number appears on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(a), Number of respondents.

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

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

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

(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Initial notification	1	1	0	1

Application of construction	1	1	0	1

Notification of performance test	1	1	0	1

Notification of compliance status	1	1	0	1

First compliance report	1	1	0	1

Semiannual compliance report	11	2	0	22

SSM report	11	10	0	110

	Total	137

	The number of Total Annual Responses is 137.  This number is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(b), Total annual responses.

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

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

(i) Respondent Tally

	The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(c).  The total annual labor costs are $1,002,163.  The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83-I form.  Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM).  Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 89 hours per response.

	The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity are $3,000.  This number is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 14(c), Total annualized cost requested.  The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

		(ii) The Agency Tally

	The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 1,451 labor hours at a cost of $58,836.  See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NESHAP

for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM).

	6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

	The increase in burden hours from the most recently approved ICR is partly due to an increase of new sources.  However, most of the burden increase is due to accounting for full compliance with the standard by all existing respondents.  There is also an increase in the annual cost, which was due to revised hourly rates from the United States Department of Labor.

	There are no changes in the capital/startup and operations and maintenance costs from the previous ICR.

	6(g) Burden Statement

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 89 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose

the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

o comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ OECA-2005-0033, which is available for online viewing at  www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets 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 EPA Docket ID Number:  EPA-HQ OECA-2005-0033, and OMB Control Number 2060-0516 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

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

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMMMM)

Burden item

(A)

Person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No.  of

occurrences

per respondent

per year

(C)

Person-

hours per

respondent

per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Respondents

per year  a

(E)

Technical

person-

hours per

year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per 	year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $  b

1.  Reporting Requirements

    a.  Read instructions c	4	1	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	  $371.35

    b.  Gather information c	4	1	4	11	44	2.2	4.4	$4,084.87

    c.  Reports

      i.  Initial notification  c	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$185.68

     ii.  Application for construction                  for new sources c	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$185.68

    iii. Notification of performance

          test c, d	2	1	2	1	2	0.1	0.2	$185.68

    iv.  Notification of compliance

          status c	20	1	20	1	20	1	2	$1,856.76

     v.  First compliance report c	8	1	8	1	8	0.4	0.8	$742.70

    vi.  Semiannual compliance report d	4	2	8	11	88	4.4	8.8	$8,169.74

   vii.  Annual compliance report e	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

  viii.  SSM report   	2	10	20	11	220	11	22	$29,424.36

4.  Recordkeeping requirements

    a.  Plan activities c	10	1	10	1	10	0.5	1	$928.38

    b.  Implement activities for Flame              Lamination

     i.  Record SSM	1	100	100	11	1,100	55	110	 $102,121.80

    ii.  Conduct performance test c, f	50	1	50	1	50	2.5	5	$4,641.90

   iii.  Record CPMS measurements	2	300	600	11	6,600	330	660	$612,712.80

   iv.  CPMS calibration and                            maintenance	4	50 200	11	2,200	110	220	$204,243.60

    c.  Implement activities for Loop                Slitters

       i.  Record adhesives used and

           suppliers	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	$0

      ii.  Conduct Method 311 test 	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

    d.  Develop record system

       i.  SSM plan c, d	40	1	40	1	40	2	4	$3,713.52

      ii.  Continuous parameter                            monitoring system (CPMS)                   maintenance plan c, d	20	1	20	1	20	1	2 $1,856.76

    e.  Time to train personnel

       i.  CPMS acquisition and                           installation c, d	20	1	20	1	20	1	2	$1,856.76

      ii.  CPMS inspection and                            monitoring c, d	4	1	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	$371.35

     f.  Store, file, and maintain all

         records	1

	12	12	11	132	6.6	13.2	$12,254.62

    g.  Retrieve records/reports	1	12	12	11	132	6.6	13.2	$12,254.62

Subtotals Labor Burden and Cost

10,698

534.9

1,069.8

$1,002,162.93

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

12,303

$1,002,163

Assumptions:

a  We have assumed that the average number of respondents that will be subject to the rule will be 11. There will be one additional new source (flame lamination) that will become subject to the rule over the three-year period of this ICR.

b  This ICR uses the following labor rates: $97.46 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $83.71 per hour for Technical labor, and $42.55 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, (Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group.(  The rates are from column 1, (Total compensation.(  The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

c  This is a one-time activity for each facility.

d  This applies to flame lamination facilities.

e  This applies to loop slitter adhesive use facilities.

f  It also includes writing site-specific test plan.Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMMMM)

	Activity	(A)

EPA person-

hours per

occurrence	(B)

No. of

occurrences

per plant

 per year	(C)

EPA person

hours per

plant  per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Plants per year  a	(E)

Technical

person-hours

per year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

	(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Cost, $ b

1.   Review initial notification c	4	1	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	   $186.48

2.   Review application for                   construction c	4

	1

	4

	1

	4

	0.2

	0.4

	$186.48

3.   Review notification of                    compliance status c	20	1 20	1	20	1	2	$932.42

4.   Review initial compliance              report c, d	2

	1

	2

	0

	0

	0

	0

	$0

5.   Review initial compliance              report c, e	20	1	20	1	20	1	2 $932.42

6.   Review notification of                    performance test c, d	4	1 4	1	4	0.2	0.4	$186.48

7.   Review annual compliance             report d	1

	1

	1

	0

	0

	0

	0

	$0

8.   Review semiannual                         compliance report e	15

	2

	30

	11

	330

	16.5	33

	$15,384.93

9.  Review startup, shutdown,             malfunction report e	8

	10

	80

	11

	880

	44

	88

	$41,026.48

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	1,451

$58,836

Assumptions:

a  We have assumed that the average number of respondents subject to the rule will be 11. There are nine flame lamination facilities that are currently subject to the regulation and it is estimated that one additional respondent per year will be subject to the requirements over the three-year period of this ICR.  There are no loop slitters that are considered major sources that would be subject to the rule.   b  This cost is based on the following labor rates which incorporates a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses:  Managerial rate of $56.02 (GS-13, Step 5, $35.01 x 1.6), Technical rate of $41.57 (GS-12, Step 1, $25.98 x 1.6), and Clerical rate of $22.50 (GS-6, Step 3, $14.06 x 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (2005 General Schedule( which excludes locality rates of pay.

c  This is a one-time activity performed once per facility.

    d  This applies only to loop slitter adhesive use facilities.

    e  This applies only to flame lamination facilities.

 PAGE   12

 PAGE   17

 PAGE   14

 PAGE   13


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 25, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24909-24910]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08661]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0345]

Safety Zone; Military Ocean Terminal Concord Safety Zone, Suisun
Bay, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in the navigable
waters of Suisun Bay, off Concord, CA, in support of explosive on-
loading to Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) from April 26, 2023,
through May 5, 2023. This safety zone is necessary to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential explosion
within the explosive arc. The safety zone is open to all persons and
vessels for transitory use, but vessel operators desiring to anchor or
otherwise loiter within the safety zone must obtain the permission of
the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.
All persons and vessels operating within the safety zone must comply
with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port San
Francisco or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1198 will be enforced from 12:01
a.m. on April 26, 2023, until 11:59 p.m. on May 5, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call, or email Lieutenant Anthony Solares,
Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Management Division, 415-
399-3585, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in 33 CFR 165.1198 for the Military Ocean Terminal Concord, CA (MOTCO)
regulated area from 12:01 a.m. on April 26, 2023, until 11:59 p.m. on
May 5, 2023, or as announced via marine local broadcasts. This safety
zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential explosion within the explosive arc. The

regulation for this safety zone, Sec.  165.1198, specifies the location
of the safety zone which encompasses the navigable waters in the area
between 500 yards of MOTCO Pier 2 in position 38[deg]03'30'' N,
122[deg]01'14'' W and 3,000 yards of the pier. During the enforcement
periods, as reflected in Sec.  165.1198(d), if you are the operator of
a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with the instructions of
the COTP or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. Vessel operators
desiring to anchor or otherwise loiter within the safety zone must
contact Sector San Francisco Vessel Traffic Service at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
VHF Channel 14 to obtain permission.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via marine information broadcasts.

    Dated: April 18, 2023.
Taylor Q. Lam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2023-08661 Filed 4-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


BIODEGRADATION (BOD/ COD)

TEST SUBSTANCE Identity: Perfluorooctanoic acid, ammonium salt; may also be referred to as PFOA ammonium salt, Ammonium perfluorooctanoate, FC 116, FC 126, FC 169, or FC 143. (Octanoic acid, pentadecafluoro, ammonium salt, CAS # 3825 26 l)

Remarks: The 3M production lot number was not noted. The test sample is FC 126 and is referred to by the testing laboratory as E1282 1 and E1282 2. It's purity was not sufficiently characterized, though current information indicates it is a mixture of 78  93% test substance and 7  22% C5, CS, and C7 perfluoro analogue'compounds.

METHOD:

Method: EPA approved standard method numbers 507 and 508A. Type: Aerobic (BOD) and Dichromate reflux (COD) GLP: No Year completed: 1987 Contact time: 20 days Inoculum: Not noted RESULTS Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): 825 mg/ kg* Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): 5 Day: 140 mg/ kg 1 O Day: 500 mg/ kg 20 Day: 710 mg/ kg *Average of two tests.

CONCLUSIONS No reliable conclusions can be derived from this study.

Submitter: 3M Company, Environmental Laboratory, P. O. Box 33331, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55133 DATA QUALITY Reliability: Klimisch ranking 4. Summary was created using only a listing of test values. The original study procedure and raw data were not found. However, there was a discrepancy` noted in the data values. Data GO3703 was reported as "mg/ L" by the testing laboratory, but was entered as "mg/ kg" values in the 3M Environmental Laboratory archive system without proper conversion from volume to mass units. Therefore, the data is invalid as stated.

REFERENCES The COD and BOD studies were conducted by Pace Analytical of Minneapolis, MN at the request of the 3M Company, Lab Request , number E1282, 5129187.

OTHER Last changed: 5/ 24/ 00 2 . . t )6/ 02/ 1987 1 ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY FINAL REPORT 1 / . LAB REQUES, NO. El282 3EQUESTOR NAME: CONTRACT LAB: PACE >EPARTMENT: 053 CONTRACT LAB COST: 95 ?ROJECT NO: 9970012900 3I'I E L HOURS: 1ATE RECEIVED: 02/ 27/ 1987 EXP COMP DATE: 0:: 08,1987 3ESC: BASE ECOTOX SET  x 126 DATE COMPLETED: 05/ 29/ 1987 __ SAMPLE DATE CODE DESCRIPTION RESULT #IN DET LIMIT ,,,,,,~

1' 02/ 18/ 87 FC 126 LOT 390 DAPHNIA ACUTE TEST FISH ACUTE TEST *BID 05 (CARBONACEOUS) *BID lo (CARBONACEOUS) f *BID 20 (CARBONACEOUS) *coD (DICHROMATE REFLUX) MICROTOX  EC50 *INORGANIC TESTS REPORT SLUDGE RESPIRATION  EC50 COMPLETE COMPLETE *  CONTRACT LAB SUBMITTED BY: DATED: &i z? 7 REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS " E LZSL May 20, 1987 Mr. Wade Scheil 3M Environmental Laboratory 935 Bush Avenue Bldg. 2 3E St. Paul, MN 55133 Dear Mr. Scheil:

Enclosed is the report of laboratory analyses for samples received 03/ 02/ 87.

If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact Tom Halverson or wself.

Sincerely, ?

oratory Services Enclosures .

1710 Douglsr Drive North 0 Mlnneapoli8, MN 56422 Cl Phone (612) 644 6643 w3706 I  (7 REPORTOFLABORATORY, ANALYSlS . labor atones, nc 3M Environmental Laboratory 935 Bush Avenue Bldg. 2 3E St. Paul, MN 55133 Attn: Mr. Wade Scheil El282 Date Sample( s) Collected: By Client Date Sample( s) Received: 03/ 02/ 87 PACE Sample Number:

Parameter Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand( l) Carboneceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand( l) Carboneceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand( l) Chemical Oxygen Demand( E) u *ts MDL mg/ L i 60 mg/ L (:! mg/ L 6": mg/ L 50 MDL Method Detection Limit (1) BOD analysis was performed in accordance with standard methods #507 (2) COD analysis was performed in accordance with standard methods #508A May 20, 1987 PACE Project Number: 870303508 029790 029800 E1282 1 E1282 2 140  500' 710 820 830 The data contained in this report was obtained using EPA or other approved methodologies. supervision. All analyses were performed by me or under my direct Manager 1710 Douglas Drive North Cl Minneapolis, MN 55422 0 phone (612) 5445543


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16848-16849]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC19-78-000.
    Applicants: Noverco Inc., Valener Inc.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Noverco Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 4/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190417-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1179-000.
    Applicants: AES ES Gilbert, LLC.
    Description: Second Supplement to March 4, 2019 AES ES Gilbert, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1279-001.
    Applicants: Messer Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: First Amendment to Notice of
Succession to be effective 3/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1582-000.
    Applicants: DTE Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Wholesale
Distribution Agreements to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1583-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA/
ISA No. 4948; Queue No. AD1-053 to be effective 5/6/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1584-000.
    Applicants: Armadillo Flats Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: Armadillo Flats
Wind Project, LLC Triennial Amend to Market-Based Rate Tarif to be
effective 4/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1585-000.
    Applicants: Brady Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: Brady
Interconnection, LLC Triennial Amendment to Market-Based Rate Tariff to
be effective 4/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.

    Accession Number: 20190416-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1586-000.
    Applicants: Brady Wind II, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: Brady Wind II,
LLC Triennial Amendment to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 4/
17/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1587-000.
    Applicants: Brady Wind, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: Brady Wind, LLC
Triennial Amendment to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 4/17/
2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1588-000.
    Applicants: Breckinridge Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: Breckinridge
Wind Project, LLC Triennial Amend to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 4/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1589-000.
    Applicants: Cedar Bluff Wind, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: Cedar Bluff
Wind, LLC Triennial Amendment to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 4/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1590-000.
    Applicants: Chaves County Solar, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: Chaves County
Solar, LLC Triennial Amendment to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 4/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1591-000.
    Applicants: Cottonwood Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: Cottonwood Wind
Project, LLC Amendment to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 4/
17/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1592-000.
    Applicants: Elk City Renewables II, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: Elk City
Renewables II, LLC Triennial Amentment to Market-Based Rate Tariff to
be effective 4/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1593-000.
    Applicants: Kingman Wind Energy I, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: Kingman Wind
Energy I, LLC Triennial Amendment to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 4/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1594-000.
    Applicants: Kingman Wind Energy II, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Triennial Review Filing: Kingman Wind
Energy II, LLC Triennial Amendment to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 4/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190416-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1595-000.
    Applicants: Pine River Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 6/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190417-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1596-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Duke
Energy Indiana, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-04-17_SA 3297 DEI-City
of Logansport, Indiana IA to be effective 7/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190417-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1597-000.
    Applicants: AES Integrated Energy, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: AES Integrated Energy, LLC
MBR Application to be effective 6/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190417-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1598-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-04-17_SA 3081 UMERC-ATC
1st Rev GIA (J704) to be effective 4/3/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190417-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1599-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Recollation Filing of
sections Schedule 12--Appendices and Attachment H to be effective 4/18/
2019.
    Filed Date: 4/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190417-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 17, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08112 Filed 4-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P