[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59663-59666]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24089]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87422; File No. SR-NYSECHX-2019-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Fee Schedule To Eliminate Market Data Revenue Rebates

October 30, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 28, 2019 the NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE
Chicago'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule of NYSE Chicago,
Inc. (the ``Fee Schedule'') to eliminate Market Data Revenue Rebates.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective November 1,
2019. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website
at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to eliminate Market
Data Revenue (``MDR'') Rebates. The Exchange proposes to implement the
fee changes effective November 1, 2019.
Background
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation National Market System
(``NMS''), the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces
in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that
current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\5\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\6\ 31 alternative trading systems,\7\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information for August 2019, no single
exchange has more than 19% market share (whether including or excluding
auction volume).\8\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More specifically,
in the first eight months of 2019, the Exchange averaged less than

0.6% market share of executed volume of non-auction equity trading.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Transaction Fee Pilot
for NMS Stocks Final Rule).
    \6\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \7\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ Based on Cboe U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary, the
Exchange's market share of intraday trading (excluding auctions) for
the months of January 2019, February 2019, March 2019, April 2019,
May 2019, June 2019, July 2019 and August 2019 was 0.52%, 0.52%,
0.56%, 0.50%, 0.50%, 0.48%, 0.46% and 0.43%, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow.
Elimination of MDR Rebates
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to eliminate MDR
Rebates by removing the text within Section P of the Fee Schedule in
its entirety, replacing it with ``Reserved.''
The Current MDR Rebates Program
    In response to the competitive environment in which the Exchange
operates, in 2013, the Exchange established the MDR Rebates program to
improve displayed liquidity and promote order flow to the Exchange by
offering an incentive for market participants to quote on the
Exchange.\10\ The Exchange then enhanced the MDR Rebates program by
including trade reports within the purview of the MDR Rebates
program.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70546 (September
27, 2013), 78 FR 61413 (October 3, 2013) (SR-CHX-2013-18) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to adopt
a Market Data Revenue Rebates program).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72759 (August 5,
2014), 79 FR 46890 (August 11, 2014) (SR-CHX-2014-11) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to amend
Section P of the Fee Schedule concerning the Market Data Revenue
Rebates program); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71210
(December 31, 2013), 79 FR 869 (January 7, 2014) (SR-CHX-2013-24)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule
change to amend the Market Data Revenue Rebates program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current MDR Rebates program provides that 50% of MDR received
by the Exchange that exceeds an applicable threshold (``Excess MDR'')
is shared with Participants.\12\ MDR and Excess MDR is calculated
separately each quarter for quotes and trade reports in each of Tapes
A, B, and C securities, for a total of six MDR pools. The Exchange
distributes to each Participant the Excess MDR in proportion to its
respective Eligible Quote Activity \13\ or Eligible Trade Activity \14\
in a pool from the previous calendar quarter.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A ``Participant'' is, except as otherwise described in the
Rules of the Exchange, ``any Participant Firm that holds a valid
Trading Permit and any person associated with a Participant Firm who
is registered with the Exchange under Articles 16 and 17 as a Market
Maker Authorized Trader or Institutional Broker Representative,
respectively.'' Article 1, Rule 1(s).
    \13\ Section P.1 of the Fee Schedule defines ``Eligible Quote
Activity'' as ``a Participant's quoting of displayed orders in Tapes
A, B and C securities.''
    \14\ Section P.1 of the Fee Schedule defines ``Eligible Trade
Activity'' as ``trades resulting from single-sided resting orders
submitted by the Participant in Tapes A, B and C securities.''
    \15\ The Exchange does not distribute MDR Rebates to a
Participant if the total MDR Rebate attributed to the Participant is
less than $500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Section P.2 of the Fee Schedule provides the following MDR
thresholds for Tape B securities:
     For quotes, the threshold is $204,000.
     For trade reports, the threshold is $36,000.
    The dollar value represents the amount of MDR that the Exchange
keeps (i.e., not eligible for sharing). Any MDR in excess of the
thresholds is Excess MDR.
    For Tape A and Tape C securities, there is no threshold for quotes.
Therefore, all MDR received in those quote pools is considered Excess
MDR, and 50% of all MDR received in Tape A and Tape C securities is
eligible for sharing with Participants pursuant to the MDR Rebates
program.
    For Tape A and Tape C securities, the threshold value for trade
reports is equal to the MDR received by the Exchange that can be
attributed to trade reports resulting from cross orders, as defined
under Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A cross order is an order to buy and sell the same security
at a specific price, and may only execute on the Exchange if it is
priced better than the Working Price of all resting orders on the
book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2017, the Exchange paid a total of $907,035 under the MDR
Rebates program to 13 Participants. In 2018, the Exchange paid a total
of $1,243,774 under the MDR Rebates program to 10 Participants.
Application of Proposed Change
    The MDR Rebates program has not achieved its intended objective,
which was to encourage Participants to increase their quoting and
trading activity on the Exchange, as significantly as the Exchange had
anticipated. Since the program (in its current form) began, the
Exchange's market share has remained largely unchanged. In the third
quarter of 2014, the Exchange's market share in cash equities trading,
excluding auctions, was 0.56% \17\ and in the fourth quarter of 2014,
after the current version of the program was implemented, it declined
to 0.44%.\18\ In the first six months of 2019, the Exchange's market
share, excluding auctions, remained below 0.6%.\19\ Because the program
has not achieved the intended growth in trading on the Exchange, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the program in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See note 8, supra.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ See note 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on 2018 payments under the program, only 10 Participants will
be impacted by this proposed change.\20\ Although the Exchange is
proposing to eliminate the MDR Rebates program mid-quarter, the
Exchange will distribute MDR Rebates to Participants for the month of
October 2019 unless the total MDR Rebate attributed to a Participant is
less than $500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As of December 31, 2018, there were 77 Participants on the
Exchange that could have qualified for the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\21\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\22\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\24\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13

exchanges,\25\ 31 alternative trading systems,\26\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange has more
than 19% market share (whether including or excluding auction
volume).\27\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of equity order flow. More specifically, in the first
eight months of 2019, the Exchange averaged less than 0.6% market share
of executed volume of equity trades (excluding auction volume).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Final Rule).
    \25\ See Cboe U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share.
    \26\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \27\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \28\ See note 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. With respect to non-marketable
orders which provide liquidity on an Exchange, Participants can choose
from any one of the 13 currently operating registered exchanges to
route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces reasonably
constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to orders that would
provide displayed liquidity on an exchange. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of
an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to eliminate the
credits associated with the MDR Rebates program is reasonable because
the MDR Rebates program has not served to incentivize Participants to
increase quoting and trading to the level anticipated by the Exchange.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, particularly
for attracting order flow that provides displayed liquidity on an
exchange. As noted above, the Exchange's market share since 2017 has
not changed in any meaningful way.
    The Exchange further believes it is reasonable to eliminate the
market data revenue sharing because the program has not had a
meaningful impact.
The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposal equitably allocates its fees and
credits among its market participants.
    The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the MDR Rebates program
because it has not served to incentivize quoting and trading activity
for which the program was designed. The Exchange expects to continue to
explore additional opportunities to provide an incentive for order flow
on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change eliminating the MDR
Rebates program is equitable as it is intended to remove a program that
does not serve as an incentive to attract more liquidity to the
Exchange. The proposal does not target any one particular category of
market participant. However, the proposal will impact one participant
more significantly as that participant received a large majority of the
MDR Rebates under the program. As to those market participants that do
not presently qualify for the revenue sharing, the proposal will not
impact their existing pricing for transactions or their ability to
qualify for other fees or credits provided by the Exchange.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of the MDR
Rebates program is not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply
to all Participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The
proposal to eliminate the MDR Rebates neither targets or will it have a
disparate impact on any particular category of market participant. As
noted above, in 2017, the Exchange paid a total of $907,035 under the
MDR Rebates program to 13 Participants, and in 2018, the Exchange paid
a total of $1,243,774 under the MDR Rebates program to 10 Participants.
These Participants comprised firms that trade on both a principal and
an agency basis and represent more than 75% of the total liquidity
providing shares executed on the Exchange. Most of these Participants
are also members of other exchanges and likely directed their order
flow primarily to those other market centers and not to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly
discriminatory because all similarly situated Participants would be
equally impacted by the elimination of the MDR Rebates program.
* * * * *
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\29\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed elimination of the
MDR Rebates program will impair the ability of Participants to compete
in the financial markets. There are 13 exchanges, 31 alternative
trading systems, and numerous broker-dealer internalizers and
wholesalers, all competing for order flow from which Participants may
choose to send their quotes and trades. The Exchange also does not
believe the proposed rule change would impact intramarket competition
as it would apply to all Participants equally that transact on the
Exchange, and therefore the proposed change would not impose a
disparate burden on competition among market participants on the
Exchange.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that eliminating the MDR Rebates
program would impact intermarket competition because the program has
not achieved its intended objective of attracting liquidity to the
Exchange and therefore, eliminating the program would not have a
material impact to the Exchange's standing with respect to its
competitors, none of whom provide a similar rebate. The Exchange notes
that in the first eight months of 2019, the Exchange averaged less than
0.6% market share of executed volume of non-auction equity trading.\30\
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees
and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with off-
exchange venues. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees
and credits in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange does not believe the
proposed change can impose any burden on competition. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-
exchange venues if they deem fee and rebate levels at those other
venues to be

more favorable. Further, inefficient pricing, including rebates that do
not incentivize increased trading and quoting activity, would serve to
impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than
burdening competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See note 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \31\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \32\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \33\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSECHX-2019-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSECHX-2019-16. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSECHX-2019-16 and should be submitted
on or before November 26, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24089 Filed 11-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP - Reporting and Recordkeeping for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP - Reporting and Recordkeeping for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal), EPA ICR Number
2025.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0481

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for Friction Materials Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ),
were proposed on October 4, 2001, (66 FR 50768) and promulgated on
October 18, 2002 (67 FR 64506).  Respondents are owners or operators of
each new, reconstructed, or existing affected source.  Friction
materials manufacturing facilities manufacture friction material using a
solvent-based process.  Friction material is subsequently used to
manufacture friction products that include, but are not limited to, disc
brake pucks, disc brake pads, brake linings, brake shoes, brake
segments, brake blocks, brake discs, clutch facings, and clutches.  The
NESHAP contains an emission limitation for solvent mixers at friction
materials manufacturing facilities.  Solvent mixers are the affected
source.

A friction materials manufacturing facility is only subject to the
regulation if it is a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions and emits, or has the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.  Consistent
with the General Provisions for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Categories (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), respondents do not include the owner or operator of any
facility that is not a major source of HAP emissions or any facility
that does not operate affected solvent mixers, even if the facility is a
major source.

The friction materials manufacturing NESHAP requires respondents to
reduce the total organic HAP emissions from their solvent mixers by
preventing emissions of no more than 15 percent (based on a 7-day block
average) of the HAP solvent that is loaded into the solvent mixer.
Respondents will likely use a solvent recovery system to reduce the
amount of HAP solvent that is emitted.  To show compliance with the HAP
solvent emission limitation, respondents are required to use a weight
measurement system (e.g., floor scale system for measuring weight of
liquid contained in a small tank) to measure and record the weight of
HAP solvent loaded into the solvent mixer and the weight of HAP solvent
recovered for each mix batch.  No performance testing is required.
However, respondents are required to conduct an initial compliance
demonstration, which consists of measuring and recording the weight of
HAP solvent loaded into each solvent mixer, and the weight of HAP
solvent recovered for each mix batch over the first seven consecutive
days after the compliance date.  Respondents also must maintain records
of specific information needed to determine that the standards are being
achieved and maintained.

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.  Semiannual reports for periods
of operation during which the emission limitation is exceeded (or
reports certifying that no exceedances have occurred) also are required.

Approximately four respondents are currently subject to the regulation,
and it is estimated that no additional respondents per year will become
subject to the regulation in the next three years.

There are approximately four friction materials manufacturing facilities
in the United States, which are owned and operated by the friction
material manufacturing industry.  None of the four facilities in the
United States are owned by state, local, tribal, or the Federal
government.  They are owned and operated by privately owned for-profit
businesses.  You can find the burden to the “Affected Public” listed
below in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost – NESHAP –
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal).  The Federal
government burden does not include work performed by Federal employees.
The burden refers only to work performed by contractors, which could be
found listed below in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP –
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal)..

In the development of the ICR, we addressed the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) “Terms of Clearance (TOC)” on the active ICR.  The TOC
are as follows:

When this ICR is renewed, EPA should review the respondent burden,
universe, labor rates, and capital costs and ensure these estimates have
been updated.

EPA has addressed each item of concern in the TOC.  The respondent
burden, universe, labor rates, and capital cost, have been thoroughly
checked, and all estimates updated.

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 (HAP).
These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and
shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.  In addition,
section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or
operator subject to any requirement of this Act 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 (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, HAP emissions from affected solvent
mixers cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NESHAP
was promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
QQQQQ.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations which where 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 tests, 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 ensure that 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 information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the agency to
ensure that facilities affected by the NESHAP continue to operate the
control equipment in compliance with the regulation.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

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

3(a)  Non-duplication

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 their 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 (76 FR 26900) on May 9, 2011.  No
comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

The Agency’s industry experts have been consulted, and the Agency’s
internal data sources and projections of industry growth over the next
three years have been considered.  The primary source of information as
reported by industry, in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in the standard, is the Online Tracking Information System
(OTIS) which is operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.
 OTIS is the EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval
of all compliance data.  The growth rate for the industry is based on
our consultations with the Agency’s internal industry experts.
Approximately four respondents will be subject to the standard over the
three-year period covered by this ICR.

Industry trade associations and other interested parties were provided
an opportunity to comment on the burden associated with the standard as
it was being developed.  In developing this ICR, we contacted the Motor
and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
Dynax America Corporation at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

It is our policy to respond after a thorough review of comments received
since the last ICR renewal as well as those submitted in response to the
First Federal Register Notice.

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 proper
operation and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of
detecting violations would be less likely.

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 allows EPA to establish the compliance history of a source, any
pattern of non-compliance, and to determine the appropriate level of
enforcement action.  EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have
violations extending beyond the five years.  In addition, EPA would be
prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or
nonexistence of essential records.

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 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 20, 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
friction materials manufacturing facilities.  The United States Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for the respondents affected by
the standards, which corresponds to The North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes, are listed below for source
category description.

Standard (40 CFR part 63, Subpart QQQQQ)	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing	3714	336340

All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing	3299
327999

Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing	3568	333613

4(b)  Information Requested

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

(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data recorded or reported is required by National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants – Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials Manufacturing (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports

Initial notifications, including construction/reconstruction
63.9535(a-d), 63.05, 63.09(b)

Notification of compliance status	63.9535(e), 63.09(h)

Performance of sludge test and determine mercury emissions.	61.54(a),
(c-e)

Reports

Semiannual compliance report on startup, shutdown, and malfunction
63.9540(b)(4) and (d), 63.10(d)(5)

Semiannual compliance report on no deviations	63.9540(b)(5-6)

Annual report on deviations	63.9540(c)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Maintain records of all reports and notifications	63.9550, 63.10(b)(1)

Maintain records for initial notification and notification of compliance
status	63.9545(a)(1), 63.10(b)(xiv)

Maintain records related to startup, shutdown or malfunction
63.9545(1)(2)

Monitor records showing solvent mixers meeting the emission limitation
63.9530, 63.9545(b), 63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x-xi)

Electronic Reporting

Some of the respondents are using monitoring equipment that
automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the
affected facility must still evaluate the data, internal automation has
significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and
recordkeeping at a 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.

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate solvent mixers at fiction
material manufacturing facility.

Write the notification 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.

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.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way e.g., continuous parameter monitoring
system.  Although personnel at the source still 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

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 Online Tracking Information
System (OTIS).

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 operational.  Performance test reports are used
by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with
the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which
compliance was achieved.  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 OTIS which is
operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  OTIS is the
EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of
compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and
government-owned facilities.  EPA uses OTIS for tracking air pollution
compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA
regional offices, and EPA headquarters.  EPA delegated Authorities can
edit, store, retrieve, and analyze the data.

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

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

The 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 EPA considers these to be the minimum requirements
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 –
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials
Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal), below.

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.  Wherever 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 1,296
(Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency
studies and background documents from the development of the 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	$118.92 ($56.63 + 110%)

Technical	$97.78 ($46.56 + 110%)

Clerical	$48.76 ($23.22 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, December 2010, "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 both 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 monitors and
other costs such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  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)

Monitoring Control Device	$2,139	0	$0	$272	4	$1,088

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $0.  This is the total
of column D in the above table.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs consists of
photocopying, and postage are $1,088.  This is the total of column G.

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 $1,100 (rounded).

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

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

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $2,653.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$62.27 (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 + 60%)

		Technical	$46.21 (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 + 60%)

		Clerical	$25.01 (GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2011
General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates
have been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages
available to government employees.  Details upon which this estimate is
based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NESHAP – Reporting
and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials Manufacturing
(40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal), below.

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 four respondents will be subject to the standard.
It is estimated that no additional sources per year will become subject
in the next three years.  The overall average number of respondents, as
shown in the table below is four per year.

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

Number of Respondents

Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents 1	(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	0	4	0	0	4

2	0	4	0	0	4

3	0	4	0	0	4

Average	0	4	0	0	4

1 New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed, and
modified affected facilities.  In this standard, existing respondents
submit initial notifications.

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 four.

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

Notification of applicability	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of construction/reconstruction	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of anticipated startup	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of actual startup	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of compliance status	0	1	N/A	0

Annual report of deviation	0.6	1	N/A	0.6

Semiannual report with no deviation	3.4	2	N/A	6.8

Unplanned startup, shutdown, malfunction report	0.4	2	N/A	0.8

	Total (rounded)	8

The number of Total Annual Responses is eight.

The total annual labor costs are $122,373.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost:
NESHAP – Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal),
below.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours 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 annual labor costs are $122,373.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost:
NESHAP – Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction
Materials Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal),
below.  Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 162
hours per response.

The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity
are $1,100.

(ii)  The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is
estimated to be 59 labor hours at a cost of $2,653.  See Table 2: Annual
Agency Burden and Cost: NESHAP – Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements for the Friction Materials Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal), below.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

	There is no change in the labor hours in this ICR as compared to the
previous ICR.  This situation is due to two considerations: 1) the
regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years; and 2) the growth rate
for the industry is very low, negative, or non-existent, so there is no
significant change in the overall burden.  There is, however, an
increase in the estimated burden cost as currently identified in the OMB
Inventory of Approved Burdens.  The increase is not due to any program
changes.  The change in burden cost is due to the use of the most
updated labor rates.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 162 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.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0204.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"
http://www.regulations.gov/  which may be used to obtain a copy of the
draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the content of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When
in the system, select “search” than key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.  The documents are also available for
public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information
Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, N.W., 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 Enforcement and
Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0204 and OMB Control Number
2060-0481 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 – Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials Manufacturing (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal).

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 b 	(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, $  a

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Acquisition, installation and utilization of

     technology and systems	54	1	51	0	0	0	0	$0

  4.  Reporting requirements

    A.  Read instructions	0.5	1	0.5	0	0	0	0	$0

      B.  Required activities

            Startup, shutdown, malfunction plan	32	1	32	0	0	0	0	$0

    C.  Create information	 See 4B

	    D.  Gather existing information	 See 4E

	    E.  Write Report

          Notification of applicability	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

          Notification of construction/

          Reconstruction  	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

          Notification of anticipated startup 	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

          Notification of actual startup 	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

          Notification of compliance status	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

          Annual report of deviation c	8	1	8	0.6	4.8	0.24	0.48	$521.28

          Semiannual report of no deviation d	8	2	16	3.4	54.4	2.72	5.44
$5,907.94

          Startup, shutdown, malfunction report e	8	2	16	0.4	6.4	0.32
0.64	$695.05

Subtotal  for Reporting  Requirements

75.44

5.  Recordkeeping requirements

    A.  Read instructions 	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

    B.  Plan activities	See 5E

	    C.  Implement activities	See 5E

	    D.  Develop record system	See 5E

	    E.  Time to enter information

          Records of solvent weight

          Measurements f	0.033	2,600 	85.8	4	343.2	17.16	34.32
$37,272.21

          Records of block average solvent

          weight g	2	52	104	4	416	20.8	41.6	$45,178.44

          Records of startup, shutdown,

          malfunction g	1	52	52	4	208	10.4	20.8	$22,589.22

          Copies of notifications/reports h	0.25	7	1.75	4	7	0.35	0.7
$670.21

    F.  Time to train personnel i	20	1	20	4	80	4	8	$8,688.16

    G.  Time to transmit or disclose

          information h	0.25	7	1.75	4	7	0.35	0.7	$760.21

    H.  Time to audit	N/A

	Subtotals for Recordkeeping Requirements

1,220,38

	1,126.8	56.34	112.68	$122,372.72

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	1,295.82

1,296

(rounded)	$122,373

Assumptions:

a  This ICR uses the following labor rates:  $118.92 per hour for
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $97.78 per hour for
Technical labor, and $48.76 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates
are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, December 2010, 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.

b  We have assumed that there are 4 existing sources, and that no
additional new or reconstructed sources will become subject to the rule
over the next three years.  Within those four existing sources, there is
a total of seven existing solvent mixers for an average of (7/4=1.75)
1.75 mixers per source, with no additional new or reconstructed solvent
mixers expected to be constructed over the three-years of the ICR.

c  We have assumed that 15 percent of respondents will report deviation.

d  We have assumed that 85 percent of respondents will report no
deviation.

e  We have assumed that 10 percent of respondents will have a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction occur that is not managed according to the
regulation.

f  We have assumed that solvent weights are recorded once per hour (2
minutes [0.033 hr] per record) for 2,600 hours per year.  This is the
industry average solvent mixer annual operating hours.

g  It is assumed that information would be entered once per week for 52
weeks per year.

h  We have assumed that a typical plant transmits one-time notification
of applicability and compliance status; startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan semiannually; deviation report once a year; and no
deviation report semiannually for a total of seven times per year.

i  We have assumed that it will take 20 hours per plant once a year to
train personnel.

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP – Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials Manufacturing (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart QQQQQ) (Renewal).

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 b	(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, $ a

1.  Excess emissions enforcement activities c	48	1	48	0.2	9.6	0.48	0.96
$497.52

2.  Report review

     Notification of applicability	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of construction/reconstruction	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of anticipated startup	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of actual startup	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of compliance status	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

     Annual report of deviation d	20	1	20	0.6	12	0.6	1.2	$622.00

     Semiannual report of no deviation e	2	2	4	3.4	13.6	0.68	1.36
$704.81

     Startup, shutdown, malfunction report f	20	2	40	0.4	16	0.8	1.6
$829.20

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	51.2	2.56	5.12	$2,653.53

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	58.88

59 (rounded)	$2,653

 	Assumptions:

a  This cost is based on the following labor rates which incorporates a
1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead
expenses: $62.27 Managerial rate (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 x 1.6), $46.21
Technical rate (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 x 1.6), and $25.01 Clerical rate
(GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 x 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) 2011 General Schedule which excludes locality
rates of pay.

 b  We have assumed that there are 4 existing sources, and that no
additional new or reconstructed sources will become subject to the rule
over the next three years.

      Within those four existing sources, there is a total of seven
existing solvent mixers for an average of (7/4=1.75) 1.75 mixers per
source, with no additional new or

      reconstructed solvent mixers expected to be constructed over the
three-years of the ICR.

c  We have assumed that 5 percent of plants will be involved in excess
emission enforcement activities.

d  We have assumed that 15 percent of respondents will report deviation.

e  We have assumed that 85 percent of respondents will report no
deviation.

f  It is assumed that 10 percent of respondents will have a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction occur that is not managed according to the
regulations.

 PAGE

 PAGE   13

 PAGE


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42397]
[FR Doc No: C1-2015-16385]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696; FRL-9929-25-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR81

Performance Specification 18--Performance Specifications and Test
Procedures for Hydrogen Chloride Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems
at Stationary Sources

Correction

    In rule document 2015-16385, appearing on pages 38628 through 38652
in the issue of Tuesday, July 7, 2015, make the following correction:
    On page 38646, in the first column, in the last paragraph, in the
sixth line, ``+5'' should read ``5''.
[FR Doc. C1-2015-16385 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33159-33162]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13781]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0554; Product Identifier 2018-NM-064-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series
airplanes; Model A320 series airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131,
-211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a revision of an airworthiness limitation
item (ALI) document, which requires more restrictive maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD would
require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0554; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0554;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-064-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    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 NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0168, dated September 7, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 series
airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320 series airplanes;
and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -
253N, and -271N airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A320 family aeroplanes
are currently defined and published in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The airworthiness
limitations applicable to the Certification Maintenance Requirements
(CMR), which are approved by EASA, are published in ALS Part 3.
    The instructions contained in the ALS Part 3 have been
identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness. Failure
to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe
condition.
    Previously, EASA issued AD 2016-0092 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2017-25-04, Amendment 39-19118 (82 FR 58098, December 11, 2017)
(``AD 2017-25-04'')], to require accomplishment of all maintenance
tasks as described in ALS Part 3 at Revision 03. The new ALS Part 3
Revision 05 (hereafter referred to as ``the ALS'' in this [EASA] AD)
includes new and/or more restrictive requirements and extends the
applicability to model A320-251N, A320-271N, A321-251N, A321-253N
and A321-271N aeroplanes.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2016-0092, which is superseded, and requires
accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in the ALS.

    The unsafe condition is a safety-significant latent failure (that
is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other
specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or
catastrophic failure condition. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0554.

Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2017-25-04

    This NPRM does not propose to supersede AD 2017-25-04. Rather, we
have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to
address

the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require revising the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment
of the proposed actions would then terminate all of the requirements of
AD 2017-25-04.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMR), Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017. The service
information describes maintenance instructions and airworthiness
limitations, including updated inspections and intervals to be
incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    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 the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of these same type designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or
inspection program to incorporate new or revised airworthiness
limitation requirements, except as discussed under ``Differences
Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.''
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of
changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued
operational safety of the airplane.

Airworthiness Limitations Based on Type Design

    The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the
applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into
an operator's maintenance or inspection program.
    Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation
authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered
under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD
typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.
    In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an
airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in
this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or
inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as
specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been
approved by the FAA.
    When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific
ALS, including the current revision in effect, is a part of that type
design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).
    The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is
an obligation to comply with the ALS revision defined in the type
design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This
obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific
ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as
part of their type design. Note: When a new airplane is delivered with
a later ALS revision, the revised ALS must correct the unsafe condition
associated with an existing AD, as specified in 14 CFR 21.21(b)(2).
    To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods
of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most
recent ALS revision (i.e., a later revision) into their maintenance/
inspection programs, in lieu of the earlier ALS revision required by
the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply
with both the AD and the type design.
    However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we
recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-
mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection
programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS
revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure
that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly
delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in
an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS
revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of
the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier
AD.
    This proposed AD therefore would apply to Airbus Model A318 series
airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320 series airplanes;
and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -
253N, and -271N airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness
or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or
before the date of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD.
Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date
must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the
approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

Difference Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS
inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance
with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does
not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes
are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to
perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We
consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions
necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this
proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,250 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:
    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we
recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the
past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be

$7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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.

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

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0554; Product Identifier 2018-NM-064-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 31, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2017-25-04, Amendment 39-19118 (82 FR 58098,
December 11, 2017) (``AD 2017-25-04'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any
category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before April 6,
2017.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N,
and -271N airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -
251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision of an airworthiness
limitation item (ALI) document, which requires more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are
issuing this AD to address a safety-significant latent failure (that
is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other
specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or
catastrophic failure condition.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMR), Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017 (``ALS Part 3
CMR, R5''). The initial compliance time for accomplishing the tasks
specified in ALS Part 3 CMR, R5, is at the applicable time specified
in ALS Part 3 CMR, R5, or within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.

(h) Terminating Actions for AD 2017-25-04

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD
terminates all of the requirements of AD 2017-25-04.

(i) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has
been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (ii) AMOCs applicable previously for AD 2017-25-04 or AD 2014-
22-08, Amendment 39-18013 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014) that
require incorporation of ALS Part 3 CMR, R5, are considered approved
as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by The Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD

2017-0168, dated September 7, 2017, for related information. This
MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2018-0554.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No:
2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33
5 61 93 44 51; email account.ai[email protected]; internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 19, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-13781 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 67 (Monday, April 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17244-17245]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07149]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9960-16-Region 1]

Notice of Availability of Final NPDES General Permits for
Discharges From Potable Water Treatment Facilities in Massachusetts and
New Hampshire: The Potable Water Treatment Facility General Permit
(PWTF GP)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final NPDES General Permits MAG640000
and NHG640000.

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

SUMMARY: The Director of the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--Region 1, is providing a notice
of availability of the final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permits (GP) for discharges from potable water
treatment facilities (PWTFs) to certain waters of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the State of New Hampshire. The final General Permits
establish Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements, effluent limitations,
standard and special conditions, prohibitions, and best management
practices (BMPs) for sites with discharges from potable water treatment
facilities. These General Permits replace the previous PWTF GP that
expired on October 2, 2014.

DATES: The General Permits shall be effective on March 6, 2017 and will
expire five (5) years from the effective date. In accordance with 40
CFR part 23, this permit shall be considered issued for the purpose of
judicial review on March 20, 2017. Under section 509(b) of the Clean
Water Act, judicial review can be had by filing a petition for review
in the United States Court of Appeals within 120 days after the permit
is considered issued for purposes of judicial review. Under section
509(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, the requirements in this permit may
not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings to enforce
these requirements. In addition, this permit may not be challenged in
other agency proceedings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information concerning the
final General Permits may be obtained between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, from Mark Voorhees,
U.S. EPA--Region 1, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Mail Code OEP06-4, Boston, MA 02109-3912; telephone:
617-918-1537; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is reissuing two General Permits for
wastewater discharges from potable water treatment facilities in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire, that are generally less than or equal
to 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) and that use one or more of the
following treatment processes: Clarification, Coagulation, Media
Filtration, Membrane filtration (not including reverse osmosis), and
Disinfection. While the final General Permits are two distinct permits,
for convenience, EPA has grouped them together in a single document and
has provided a single fact sheet. This document refers to the draft
General ``Permit'' in the singular. The final General Permit, fact
sheet, and appendices are available at: http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/pwtfgp.html.
    The final General Permit establishes Notice of Intent (NOI)
requirements, effluent limitations and requirements based on
technology-based considerations, best professional judgment (BPJ), and
water quality considerations. The effluent limits established in the
final General Permit assure that the surface water quality standards of
the receiving water(s) are protected, attained, and/or maintained. The
permit also contains BMP requirements in order to ensure EPA has the
information necessary to ensure compliance and to ensure discharges
meet water quality standards.
    Obtaining Authorization: In order to obtain authorization to
discharge, PWTF operators must submit a complete and accurate NOI
containing the information in Appendix IV of the General Permit. This
information shall be submitted to both EPA and the appropriate state,
as described in Appendix IV. NOIs may be submitted to EPA
electronically or via mail at the addresses provided below:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
    (2) Mail: Mark Voorhees, U.S. EPA--Region 1, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Mail Code OEP06-4, Boston,
MA 02109-3912.
    All NOIs submitted to EPA after December 21, 2020 must be submitted
electronically.
    Facilities currently authorized to discharge under the Expired PWTF
GP must submit a NOI within 90 days of the effective date of the final
General Permit. Operators with new discharges must submit a NOI at
least 60 days prior to initiating discharges and following the
effective date of the final General Permit. Facilities with existing
discharges that were not authorized under the Expired PWTF GP and which
use aluminum in their treatment process must conduct more extensive
water quality sampling data and submit this information with the NOI
within 6 months of the effective date of the final General Permit.
    Operators must meet the eligibility requirements of the General
Permit prior to submission of a NOI. An operator will be authorized to
discharge under the General Permit upon receipt of written notice from
EPA following EPA's web posting of the submitted NOI. EPA will

authorize the discharge, request additional information, or require the
operator to apply for an alternative permit or an individual permit.
    Other Legal Requirements: Endangered Species Act (ESA): EPA has
updated the provisions and necessary actions and documentation related
to potential impacts to endangered species from facilities seeking
coverage under the PWTF GP. EPA has received concurrence from the
National Marine Fisheries Service in connection with this General
Permit.
    In the fact sheet that accompanied the draft General Permit, EPA
stated that we would seek concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) regarding our determination of effect on endangered
species under their jurisdiction. Following the release of the draft
General Permit, EPA had discussions with USFWS on this matter. Based on
discussions with USFWS, EPA has determined that this General Permit has
``no effect.'' The reason for this determination is because each Notice
of Intent (NOI) that is submitted must assess site specific endangered
species impacts using USFWS' Information, Planning, and Conservation
(IPac) Web site, available at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Based on the
findings using this Web site, the applicant can either make a
determination of impacts or if there are questions, seek input from
USFWS directly. Since each NOI is individually screened prior to
submission, the General Permit has no effect.
    National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): In accordance with NHPA,
EPA has established provisions and documentation requirements for sites
seeking coverage under the PWTF GP to ensure that discharges or actions
taken under this General Permit will not adversely affect historic
properties and places.

    Authority: This action is being taken under the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: March 9, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2017-07149 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 66375]
[DOCID:fr02no05-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-7-000]

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Notice of Filing

October 21, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 19, 2005, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (MetLife) filed a petition for declaratory order requesting
that the Commission find that MetLife is not a public utility under the
Federal Power Act as a result of the transaction authorized by the
Commission in Docket No. EC05-87-000. MetLife states that it has served
its petition on the official service list compiled in Docket No. EC05-
87-000.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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 docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 18, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6036 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P