Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Enforcement and Compliance and Assurance

New Owners Audit Policy Working Session

Summary Notes

Washington, DC

June 13, 2007

INTRODUCTION

With a May 14, 2007 Federal Register (FR) Notice, “Enhancing
Environmental Outcomes from Audit Policy Disclosures through Tailored
Incentives for New Owners,” (72 Fed. Reg. 27,116), Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) launched a 60-day public comment process to explore
ways to increase environmental outcomes through implementation of the
Agency’s leading compliance incentive settlement policy, the “Audit
Policy,” and to encourage the Policy’s use by “new owners” after
M&A transactions.

EPA is exploring the idea of offering tailored incentives to encourage
new owners to audit their newly acquired facilities and self-disclose
violations they find to the Agency.  This is part of an Agency effort to
increase disclosure and resolution of environmental violations that,
once corrected, will yield significant pollutant reductions and
environmental benefits.

As part of the public comment process, EPA set up a docket to accept and
record written comments from the public; held two public meetings to
discuss the FR Notice and take oral comments for the public record; and
also invited a diverse, but balanced, group of industry, government,
academic and interest group participants to working sessions focused on
the questions posed in the FR.  The working sessions were envisioned as
a chance for the Agency to hear the views of a variety of individuals
with different perspectives and experiences in a relatively informal,
frank atmosphere.  No consensus of opinion was sought or presented.

The notes below summarize the comments made at the working session in
Washington, DC, and the general discussion about ways to encourage the
self-discovery, correction, disclosure, and prevention of environmental
violations by new owners.  The summary represents participant
observations and recommendations, but no comment is attributed to any
individual participant.  The individuals who accepted EPA’s invitation
to participate are, however, identified below, by name and affiliation.
EPA will make this summary part of the public record, and will consider
it, along with all the other public input, in deciding whether and how
to proceed with the development of incentives for new owners.

PARTICIPANTS

EPA

Walker Smith

Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, OCE, OECA

Susan O’Keefe

Acting Director, Special Litigation and Projects Division (SLPD), OCE,
OECA

Caroline Makepeace

Jonathan Libber

Phil Milton

Danielle Fidler

ALL: SLPD, OCE, OECA

IEc (Consultants to EPA)

Gail Coad

Mark Ewen

Kailin Kroetz

DOJ

Anna Thode

Public

Jeanne Cohn-Connor

Kirkland & Ellis

Bruce Pasfield

Alston & Bird

David Buente

Sidley & Austin

Bruce Adler

General Electric and Corporate Environmental Enforcement Council

Bill White

Moore and Van Allen

Steven Murawaski

Baker & MacKenzie

Ira Feldman

Greentrack

Eric Schaeffer

Environmental Integrity Project

Sylvia Lowrance

Joel Gross

Arnold & Porter

Sara Beth Watson

Steptoe & Johnson and

American Bar Association Section on Environment, Energy and Resources

Tim Wilkins

Bracewell & Guiliani

Sarah Stafford

College of William & Mary

Steve Herman

Beveridge and Diamond

Catherine Little

Hunton & Williams

Frank Friedman

Frank B. Friedman and Associates

Matt Gerhart

Beveridge and Diamond, law clerk

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

Walker Smith, Director, OECA-OCE

Ms. Smith thanked the participants for coming, and provided contextual
detail on the issues up for discussion.  She noted that EPA’s
overarching goals continue to be maximizing compliance with
environmental laws and regulations, and increasing disclosures of
violations that, once corrected, will yield significant pollutant
reductions and environmental benefits.  She said that the Agency
believes that the situation of new ownership may present a unique
opportunity to facilitate environmental compliance.  Ms. Smith asked the
group for comment on the definition of a new owner, the current
marketplace for mergers and acquisitions and the bearing this
marketplace would have on designing a policy applicable to new owners.
She stressed the need for approaches that are straightforward and fair,
but could be easily and simply implemented, to help preserve limited
enforcement resources.

Susan O'Keefe, Acting Director, Special Litigation and Projects
Division, OECA-OCE

Ms. O'Keefe also thanked the participants for coming, and reiterated Ms.
Smith's goals for the meeting. She emphasized that the Agency feels that
there exists a unique opportunity to facilitate environmental compliance
with new owners.  After purchase, new owners are likely already
assessing environmental compliance issues and developing plans to
operate their newly acquired facilities, and their budget commitments
may still be relatively flexible, with funding available to fix
problems.  EPA also believes, based on some recent experience, that new
owners may be interested in using the audit policy to make a clean start
for their operation of a recently acquired facility.  And, importantly,
EPA believes that focus on disclosures from new owners might allow EPA
to achieve significant reductions in pollution.  EPA is interested in
thoroughly exploring ways to implement the audit policy to encourage new
owners to come forward, and to allow EPA to maximize the Agency's
limited resources.  Ms. O'Keefe specifically asked for input on how to
define “new owners,” and on the possibility of adjusting the
calculation or assessment of penalties for economic benefit, and
requested suggestions regarding the implementation of a pilot project,
if one were developed.

PARTICIPANT DISCUSSION OF OFFERING NEW OWNERS TAILORED INCENTIVES UNDER
THE AUDIT POLICY

Basis for Offering Tailored Incentives - Should EPA Offer Incentives to
New Owners, and Why?

Comments:

(1) Look at the bigger picture.  Under Title V, EPA already has around
30,000 major facilities that need to report whether or not they are in
compliance once per year.  EPA should make the requirements to report
under Title V central to this program, and maximize its results.

(2) EPA needs to shorten the odds.  EPA says that if they find a company
is noncompliant, it will be much worse than self-disclosing.  But this
threat needs to be real.  In reality, there is a very slim chance EPA
will find a violation and the violator will pay the higher penalty.

(3) Those who are disclosing currently are smaller facilities and are
disclosing because they have an audit coming up, or are likely to be
audited (e.g., small dry cleaners).  Also, after reporting, a company
gets a pass for a while, such as no audit for longer than might
otherwise be the case.  It is unlikely that the same enforcement and
inspection incentives will provide the impetus for new owners.

(4) EPA needs to guard against "over-lawyering."  If new owner
self-disclosure is similar to negotiations for a consent decree, firms
will not self-disclose.  Making this work may require not being as
legalistic as EPA has been in the past.  If the Agency got companies to
come in and gave them more of a break then they otherwise would be
inclined to do, the Agency is getting more than they normally would - a
schedule and a clear path forward, a disclosure, and getting the entity
on the Agency's radar.  The Agency can also go back and see if the
policy really worked, by following up with the company.

(5) Enforcement ought to be directed towards compliance.  Regulations
should be directed at pollution reduction.  Why should companies
consider the amount of pollution in regard to the question of whether or
not to disclose?

(6) Industries should not need an incentive to comply.  EPA should
enforce compliance, but could reasonably provide incentives to disclose.

(7) Logic of focusing on new owners is understandable.  EPA should look
at property transfer laws that trigger environmental disclosures at
state levels, for example in New Jersey.

(8) The EPA should be careful not to encourage sham transactions.

(9) Sham transactions could actually be useful in achieving
environmental results sooner.

(10) EPA should say that Title V is serious.  Eventually issues need to
be disclosed, and this is how EPA makes it easier.  If Title V program
worked, we wouldn't need to be here. Technically something is not
working there.  It should be simple.  What isn't working about Title V,
how to bring Title V to life - rather than the dead piece of paper it is
in some states.

Realities of Merger & Acquisition (M&A) Transactions Today

Comments:

(1) No one at the meeting represents investment banking.  It is
important to get this perspective.

(2) Most M&A deals do not involve consideration of environmental issues.
 People used to be more aware of environmental issues - now it is more
of an afterthought.  Need to think differently than twenty years ago,
when people knew all or nothing.  Today there are varying degrees of
disclosure and understanding of the entity being acquired.

(3) Environmental issues are only explicitly dealt with if due diligence
reveals a huge problem.  Generally environmental issues are not a
consideration in setting a purchase price. Environmental issues may be
incorporated in indemnification, escrows, etc., but not in price
setting.  In some deals, a company may say that the purchase will not go
forward unless a huge environmental problem is solved (i.e., the need to
get a permit).  For smaller issues, the buyer will just purchase the
facility and fix the problems.

(4) Indemnity agreements are all over the map and often include a myriad
of details.  The Agency could get mired in trying to sort them out.
Some sort of certification from the new owner could help avoid that
problem.

(5) Different types of transactions should be treated differently, for
example asset purchase versus stock purchase versus merger.

(6) Big M&As are often fast and may involve bidding wars.  Purchase
prices do not include any accommodation for economic benefit of
noncompliance.  Sometimes in smaller deals, price may be adjusted for
environmental compliance issues.

(7) EPA can simplify the approach to defining new owners, but preserve
some flexibility.  For example, concentrate on classic M&A but exclude
spin-offs, or include straight asset purchases but exclude
inter-affiliate transactions.  Look at New Jersey transfer language as
an example.

(8) Only major and specific issues are included in the price.  If an
environmental issue came up at the last minute, the question would be
whether or not the company could, once having fixed the issue, still
make a return on its investment.  Such an issue would not be cause for
renegotiation of the actual price.  The purchasing company would take
the range of compliance costs and estimate whether or not a return can
still be made.  This calculation is rarely a deal-breaker; the finance
people always say they can handle it.   It is good to make sure they
know the potential environmental costs up front, so it is known and can
be dealt with later.

(9) Pricing is often set in bid process, and compliance costs are small.

Motivation for Self-Auditing and Disclosures

Comments:

(1) Usually motivation on part of new owner would be fear: specifically
fear of enforcers, fear of accidents, and fear of stigma.   Motivation
factors in addition to fear (versus just waiting for enforcement to
occur) are penalties and the general uncertainty of where the company
will be at the end of the process.

(2) May need to create additional incentives to create the fear.

(3) A major fear is the fear of criminal prosecution.  EPA needs to talk
about criminal implications relative to self-reporting.  What happens if
you self-report?  Or the company takes over a new facility -- what if
you find out later that there has been a violation, while you have been
operating for a nine-month period?  If you just found out, can the
agency ensure you won't be criminally prosecuted for operating during
that period?

(4) There is a benefit of addressing criminal liability issues and
resolving criminal investigations as soon as possible.

(5) What is the basis for the agency's thinking that the preponderance
of data issue reporting has to do with anything but the fact that issues
are not eligible to be reported - for example one can not get around the
Title V disclosure mechanism.

(6) Two factors affecting whether a company will disclose are: (1) can
you continue to operate without resolving environmental issues - if you
can't, will disclose; (2) the 21 day deadline, if can't make it, won't
disclose.  Other issues are not likely relevant for disclosure.

(7) My recollection of the hearings with respect to the 1995 Audit
Policy indicated that many of us suspected that the disclosures would be
primarily limited to recordkeeping violations.  There is a great
description of the development of that Policy in Frank Friedman’s
Practical Guide to Environmental Management [Environmental Law
Institute, 10th edition, 2006. Pp. 304-10].

(8)  Industry is also concerned that EPA will request copies of their
audit reports, and that the audit reports will used against them,
especially in the context of criminal investigations.  Also, when good
faith disclosures lead directly to hefty civil settlements, it can deter
some from voluntary auditing and disclosure, while penalizing those are
trying to do things right.  These issues are discussed in Frank
Friedman’s Practical Guide to Environmental Management [Environmental
Law Institute, 10th edition, 2006. P. 277].

Economic Benefit - Barrier to Self-Disclosure?  Should Economic Benefit
be Negotiable?

Comments:

(1) There are two kinds of groups: large companies with lots of deals
and also small companies that just have general counsel and no
environmental counsel.  With smaller companies there is the opportunity
to get some real compliance.  These companies, though, are fearful
because they can not afford economic benefit but often they take over
even smaller entities with violations.

(2) If a firm is eligible to disclose but doesn't, it is either because
it can fix it quickly enough that no one will find out, or for fear of
the large economic benefit penalty payment.

(3) Understand the appeal of trading economic benefit for new owner
disclosures, because EPA would get good information. How significant is
economic benefit?  EPA isn’t routinely collecting economic benefit
anyway.  As an incentive though, how important is it to companies that
you won't have to pay something the Agency never even collects?

(4) Economic benefit is not a real incentive -- a company could just
disclose to a state, and the EPA will never over file.  States pretty
much write you a check for disclosing, they never ask for economic
benefit.   A company can just go to a state and get the whole penalty
written off.

(5) Everyone knows that EPA is very flexible regarding economic benefit.

(6) Companies don't care about prior economic benefit being recovered
from competitors.  More concerned with competitors getting into
compliance now.

Audit Policy - How to Deal with Sellers?

Comments:

(1) Currently in audit policy, EPA reserves right to go back after
seller.  May need to change that.

(2) If there is an incentive for new owners to disclose - even
responsible sellers will worry about whom they are selling to.  Will
create incentive to sell to people who are not responsible - since the
seller won't want someone going and disclosing everything and turning
over every rock.  Sellers worry about criminal liability.

(3) Creating significant protections for sellers will create more of a
risk to getting this accepted publicly versus worries about sham
transactions. Right now, seller does not need protection. Generally the
seller has not discovered the problem through its own audit, or would
have disclosed it.

(4) How much protection does EPA want to give to sellers?  This would be
a bad policy, will not be publicly accepted.  The opportunity stems from
new ownership (someone is buying the company) - focus on buyers.

(5) If you protect the seller, EPA will give away the ability to go
after the sham transactions.

(6) If a buyer does due diligence and tells the seller and insists that
the seller fixes before the sale - seller should be able to take
advantage of buyer's diligence as auditor, and be treated as someone who
disclosed on their own.

(7) This is a self-limiting issue.  Consider a company in the business
of buying run-down companies who always includes indemnity agreements.
No one will sell to them.

(8) EPA should convey that this will not be a new tool to be used to
target sellers.  Agency didn't get to sellers before, probably can't say
never, but EPA should say they are not aiming at targeting sellers.

(9) Maybe EPA should implement something similar to Brownfields tools.
Brownfields recognize nature of new owners.  Lawyers guide buyer/seller
to get comfort on both sides regarding environmental issues.  This
approach would bring agency in too - and provide more comfort for all.
The whole process is five to ten years back on Brownfields, and here is
the opportunity to do something similar.  Maybe something similar to
“comfort letters” in CERCLA?  Maybe sellers’ penalties should be
waived to the extent that they would have waived as if the seller had
reported themselves.

(10) Suggest joint disclosures by seller and buyer. The seller advantage
is that the audit policy allows seller to disclose under current scheme.
 New owners would have the advantage under this policy.  Would confine
total enforcement action, put more comfort on both sides.

(11) Buyers and sellers may disagree on what property is worth.  Both
agencies and states and markets developing ways to get more certainty in
what contaminated property will cost.  There is nothing like that on the
compliance side. Is an audit something you do before or after?  When
does audit occur?  It would be good to allow for it before and after
purchase.

Timeline Defining a “New Owner”

Comments:

(1) Companies need three to six months for people to realize that this
may be an issue.

(2) Companies need at least a year, and perhaps flexibility in what is
committed to.

(3) At least a year is a good idea.  Think of companies with multiple,
large facilities -- it will take time for them to inspect.  Furthermore,
may not be able to get companies to admit certain things up front.  But
you could get them to commit to a process.

(4) The first step should be, “we've just completed a transaction -
here is the transaction - here is the plan.  If I find something I'll
disclose it.”   EPA should work to get companies into the policy - but
there is no need for a decree, etc.  The only requirement should be to
do what you said you'd do, not commit to audits... the company should be
allowed to look first.

(5) Companies may not want to raise their hand early on - if they don't
know what they are raising their hand to.

(6) Assume that for the first year a company qualifies as a “new
owner.”  During that period a company can come into the audit policy
in two ways.  Within the first year, the company can negotiate an audit
agreement.  The second model lets people get in, get feet wet - set up a
timeframe for auditing, along with the discretion to disclose.  Give
time period after audit - based on size/number facilities involved.

 (7) Time is an issue.  Say a company has 20 plants, certifying air,
water, etc; all “correct” takes a while.  Maybe something where you
have a year, but no guarantee you won't be caught in the meantime.

(8) Not so concerned about the notification period - more concerned
about time to correct.  Absent policy, EPA would find them, force them
to correct.  But this policy could be a way to delay compliance.
Companies might otherwise feel obligated to correct right away.

(9) Look at it from a technical perspective, and on a case-by-case basis
- how long does on the engineering side would it take to find out about
issues, how long would it take to get into compliance.

Design of Potential Incentives - What Should New Owners Get?

Comments:

(1) If dealing with a major transaction (major facility, multiple
facilities), often multiple violations, will likely take time to even
find the problem, never mind correct.  Also, new owners are often not
making huge new capital investments right off.  May need to balance and
relax to create an incentive.  May want to tailor the audit with input
from the companies - what are key environmental issues that they want to
come in on?  Allow companies to just come in under a few issues, rather
than committing to a broad, over-arching audit.

(2) Add something about certainty - especially with regard to the pilot
program.  EPA needs to clarify if internal reports will be protected?
Will EPA be coming to inspect?  Global inspection?  Surprise inspection?
 This is especially important when owners are financiers who won't want
to take the risk.

(3) People running companies today are financial people, not operational
people.  One thing they are looking for is certainty.  Maybe they can't
get complete certainty, but the closer EPA can get to certainty, the
more companies will come in.

(4) In first audit policy discussion respondents said that the majority
of disclosures would come from smaller firms.  EPA should go back and
look at first set of comments.

(5) If you disclose, there is always a huge information request after.
This is very annoying and EPA should eliminate this.

(6) Even with the best owner doing everything they can to fix a problem,
there could still be a big economic benefit.  Often companies care less
about the money than the stigma.  Given that, and given the fact that
you have a new owner - don't ask them to pay a penalty right away.  Find
a way to divest economic benefit without calling it a penalty such as
divesting audit, SEP-like activities - things that they otherwise
wouldn't have to do.

Measurement of Success

Comments:

(1) Success should be measured by the number of violations corrected.

(2) Success should be measured as the number of violators back in
compliance.

(3) If the Agency got people to come in and gave them more of a break
then they otherwise would be inclined to do, the Agency is getting more
than they normally would - a schedule and a clear path forward, a
disclosure, and getting the entity on the Agency's radar.  The Agency
can also go back and see if the policy really worked, by following up
with the company.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Walker Smith, Director, OECA-OCE

Ms. Smith thanked the participants for taking the time to participate
and sharing their very helpful thoughts and opinions with the Agency.
She further encouraged the participants to submit formal written
comments during the public comment period which runs through July 13.

Enhancing Environmental Outcomes from Audit Policy Disclosures

Through Tailored Incentives for New Owners:

Working Session Questions

Basis for Offering Tailored Incentives – Should EPA Offer Incentives
to New Owners, and Why?

Motivation of Self-Auditing and Disclosures

Do the circumstances of new ownership warrant special consideration or
handling, if the new owner was not responsible for creating a violation,
is willing to promptly address that violation and make changes to ensure
the facility stays in compliance in the future, and significant
environmental benefit could result?

Or, does the Audit Policy as currently implemented already offer
sufficient incentives to induce new owners to undertake self-audits and
disclosures?

Realities of M&A Transactions Today

To what extent do pre-acquisition due diligence reviews reveal
environmental noncompliance (as opposed to environmental contamination
and remedial liability), and to what extent are these liabilities
reflected in purchase price?

If a selling firm has indemnified the purchaser for violations which are
ultimately disclosed by the new owner, are tailored incentives to
self-report needed at all?

What are the potential effects on environmental compliance and on due
diligence reviews that might result from offering tailored incentives
for new owners?

Eligibility Requirements for a Pilot Program Offering Tailored
Incentives – What Does a “New Owner” Have to Be and Do to Get
Incentives?

Aspects of the Transaction which Might Affect Eligibility or the
Structure of a Program.

Would it be appropriate to require that new owners have performed a
certain level of pre-acquisition due diligence to qualify for tailored
incentives, and if so, what that level should be?

Should any tailored incentives take into account the extent to which
environmental noncompliance liabilities (as distinguished from
environmental remediation liabilities) are reflected in purchase price
and, if so, how?

Given the Agency’s interest in encouraging appropriate accountability
and buyer/seller agreements on environmental compliance issues, should
the existence or terms of an indemnification agreement have any bearing
on a new owner’s eligibility for tailored incentives and, if so, how?

Determination of New Ownership

Authenticity of New Ownership

Since the Agency is concerned about using its enforcement resources to
delve into complex corporate structures and histories to make
determinations about the authenticity of new ownership in the context of
such Audit Policy self-disclosures -- what would be a clear,
straightforward and easily administered approach to determining if a
“new owner” is bona-fide?

What should a company need to provide to demonstrate to the Agency that
it is a bona-fide “new owner?”

What should the standard be, to demonstrate “new ownership” in this
context?

Should the Agency require each company to self-certify to the government
that it is indeed a bona-fide new owner, and eligible for tailored
incentives?

If a self-certification is appropriate in this situation, what should it
contain?

Should other proof be offered along with the self-certification?

Timing of New Ownership

How long after an acquisition should an owner still be considered
“new,” for the purpose of being offered tailored incentives?

What would be a clear, straightforward and easily administered approach
to determining whether an owner is “new” enough to be eligible for
tailored incentives?

Context of New Ownership

How should the Agency treat different acquisition transactions?

Should the Agency make any distinctions between acquisitions and
mergers?

How should EPA handle disclosures by reorganized companies that emerge
from Chapter 11 bankruptcy?

Should companies in which the controlling interest is purchased by a new
firm with no plans to participate in management or operations be
eligible for any tailored incentives?

How should the Agency treat companies that are purchased by their
employees, who were employed by the company when noncompliance began?

Other Concerns

Should the Agency consider other eligibility criteria or participation
requirements if a program to offer tailored incentives is developed?

Design of Potential Incentives - What Should New Owners Get?

Reducing Penalties for Economic Benefit

Calculation of Economic Benefit

When should the clock start running when calculating economic benefit?

From the date the facility was acquired?

From the date the post-acquisition audit was completed?

How long is reasonable for new owner to complete the audit?

From the date of any delays beyond the reasonable period the owner is
given to put on controls, particularly where those controls are complex?

Should the economic benefit calculation take into account whether and
the extent to which the seller has indemnified the buyer and , if so,
how?

In calculating economic benefit, should the Agency allow the new owner
to offset the cost of the audit?

What is a fair, objective and efficient way of establishing the cost of
the audit (especially when an audit has been performed by the company
itself)?

Audit Policy consideration of violations which would otherwise be
ineligible. (Certain violations are not eligible for penalty mitigation
because their discovery is already legally required, and thus not
“voluntary,” as the Audit Policy requires.)

Since EPA wants to encourage new owners to examine compliance and
operations at their newly-acquired facilities, correct violations and
upgrade deficient equipment and practices, the Agency has allowed Audit
Policy consideration for new owners that disclose Clean Air Act Title V
violations before the first required annual certification at the new
facility, or that discover (and subsequently disclose) such violations
as part of a compliance exam the new owners agree to undertake before
the first certification is due.  Are there other similar categories of
violations disclosed by new owners that should be eligible for Audit
Policy consideration?

For example, should new owners that in good faith undertake a RMP
triennial Audit and inform the Agency of violations, which existed prior
to acquisition and are discovered through the audit, be eligible for
Audit Policy consideration?

Recognition from the Agency of new owners who self-audit and disclose
under the Audit Policy.

Would positive recognition by the Agency, commending a new owner’s
willingness to voluntarily audit and disclose, encourage a company to
undertake such actions?

What sort of recognition, if any, would be most desirable?

d)  Are there other incentives that make sense to consider offering?

Measurement of Success – How Do We Tell if it has been a Good or Bad
Idea?

If the main goal of any program is to increase compliance with
environmental laws and regulations and attain significant environmental
benefit and pollutant reductions, what measures of success should the
Agency adopt for the evaluation of a pilot program?

Should we consider outcomes besides:

the number of disclosures made under the pilot program,

the significance of the violations involved,

the significance of the pollutant reductions that can be attributed to
or associated with these disclosures?

Should we consider implementation issues besides:

transparency of the program,

efficiency in administration,

low transaction costs and resource savings?

.

d)   What methodologies should we use to accurately measure these
outcomes?

 Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and
Prevention of Violations, 65 Fed. Reg. 19618 (April 11, 2000), commonly
referred to as the “Audit Policy.”

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   7

Attachment 1

1-  PAGE  4


----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/23/2010 09:28 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Nagelhout/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ
Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA                                             |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |07/02/2010 02:13 PM
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|
  |SI RICE population and control cost information
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Cortney,
Attached is the information on the population breakdown for existing SI RICE
and the cost of controls that you asked about during our briefing yesterday.
Note that our information from engine manufacturers and landfill gas engine
operators is that there are no landfill gas engines smaller than 500 HP so our
estimates reflect that.  I'm also attaching a memo that breaks down the HAP
emissions into the different pollutants, see the sheet for "Natural Gas" on
the next to last page of the pdf file.  Please let me know if you need
anything further.  Have a nice weekend.
(See attached file: Existing SI RICE population and cost info for OMB 7-2-
10.xls)(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0030-0009 HAP EF for small
engines.pdf)

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2490-2491]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00400]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for New Special
Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5, 2021.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Nature of the
 Application No.     Applicant      Regulation(s)      special permits
                                       affected            thereof
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          SPECIAL PERMITS DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21152-N.........  Halendt          180.205........  To authorize
                   Solutions, LLC.                   transportation in
                                                     commerce certain
                                                     gasses in cylinders
                                                     produced in
                                                     accordance with
                                                     specification 3A,
                                                     3AX. 3AA, 3AAX, 3T
                                                     and UN-ISO
                                                     cylinders made in
                                                     accordance with ISO
                                                     11120, having been
                                                     requalified by
                                                     acoustic emission
                                                     (AE) and ultrasonic
                                                     examination (UE).
                                                     (modes 1, 2, 3, 4,
                                                     5)
21153-N.........  BVI Medical,     171.24(d)(2),    To authorize the
                   Inc.             173.302(f).      transportation in
                                                     commerce of
                                                     oxidizing gases
                                                     contained in small
                                                     pressure vessels
                                                     via cargo-only
                                                     aircraft. (mode 4)
21154-N.........  Erickson         172.101(j),      To authorize the
                   Incorporated.    172.200,         transportation in
                                    172.301(c),      commerce of certain
                                    172.302(c),      materials attached
                                    173.315(j)(1),   to or suspended
                                    175.30.          from an aircraft in
                                                     support of
                                                     construction
                                                     operations when no
                                                     other suitable
                                                     means are available
                                                     or impracticable or
                                                     when an aircraft is
                                                     the only safe means
                                                     of transportation
                                                     without being
                                                     subject to certain
                                                     hazard
                                                     communication
                                                     requirements,
                                                     quantity
                                                     limitations,
                                                     packing or loading
                                                     and storage
                                                     requirements. (mode
                                                     4)
21155-N.........  Aithre, Inc....  172.301(c),      To authorize the
                                    173.302a(a)(1)   manufacture, mark,
                                    , 180.205.       sale, and use non-
                                                     DOT specification
                                                     fully wrapped
                                                     carbon-fiber
                                                     reinforced aluminum
                                                     lined cylinders for
                                                     the transportation
                                                     in commerce of
                                                     UN1072 compressed
                                                     oxygen. (modes 1,
                                                     2, 3).
21157-N.........  Innophos, Inc..  ...............  To authorize the
                                                     transportation in
                                                     commerce of
                                                     polyphosphoric acid
                                                     in non-authorized
                                                     specification
                                                     packaging. (mode 1)
21159-N.........  Aithre, Inc....  172.301(c),      To authorize the
                                    173.302a(a)(1)   transportation in
                                    , 180.205.       commerce of non-DOT
                                                     specification
                                                     cylinders
                                                     containing oxygen.
                                                     (modes 1, 2, 3)
21160-N.........  Alliant          173.185(a)(1)..  To authorize the
                   Techsystems                       transportation in
                   Operations LLC.                   commerce of lithium
                                                     batteries, that are
                                                     not of a type
                                                     proven to have
                                                     passed the
                                                     requirements of
                                                     38.3 in the UN
                                                     Manual of Tests and
                                                     Criteria, when
                                                     contained in a
                                                     subassembly. (modes
                                                     1, 4)
21161-N.........  Structure        172.101(j).....  To authorize the
                   Probe, Inc.                       transportation in
                                                     commerce of
                                                     asbestos via
                                                     passenger and cargo-
                                                     only aircraft.
                                                     (mode 4)
21162-N.........  Hexagon          173.301(a)(1)..  To authorize the
                   Masterworks,                      transportation in
                   Inc.                              commerce of
                                                     partially filled
                                                     composite cylinders
                                                     with Hydrogen gas
                                                     with a maximum
                                                     charged pressure
                                                     less than 5% of the
                                                     COPV designed
                                                     service/operating
                                                     pressure. (modes 1,
                                                     2, 3, 4)
21163-N.........  United           178.345-10(b)(1  To authorize the
                   Initiators,      ).               transportation in
                   Inc.                              commerce of organic
                                                     peroxides in cargo
                                                     tank motor vehicles
                                                     that utilize
                                                     alternative
                                                     pressure relief
                                                     devices,
                                                     specifically 4--
                                                     12'' diameter
                                                     rupture disks in
                                                     lieu of the
                                                     prescribed
                                                     reclosing PRD.
                                                     (mode 1)

21165-N.........  North Carolina   172.400........  To authorize one-
                   Department of                     time transportation
                   Agriculture &                     by highway of
                   Consumer                          certain biological
                   Services.                         and infectious
                                                     substances, dilute
                                                     pesticide solutions
                                                     and small
                                                     quantities of
                                                     laboratory
                                                     reference standard
                                                     materials from two
                                                     adjacent facilities
                                                     to newly
                                                     constructed
                                                     facility. (mode 1)
21167-N.........  KULR Technology  173.185(a)(1)..  To authorize the
                   Corporation.                      manufacture, mark,
                                                     sale, and use of
                                                     alternative
                                                     packaging for
                                                     shipments of
                                                     prototype and low
                                                     production lithium
                                                     batteries. (modes
                                                     1, 2, 3, 4)
21168-N.........  Nexair, LLC....  172.203(a),      To authorize the
                                    180.205(c),      transportation in
                                    180.209(a),      commerce of certain
                                    180.209(b)(1),   Division 2.1 and
                                    180.209(b)(1)(   2.2 hazardous
                                    iv).             materials in DOT
                                                     Specification 3AL
                                                     cylinders,
                                                     cylinders
                                                     manufactured under
                                                     DOT-SP 12440, and
                                                     ISO 7866 cylinders
                                                     that are
                                                     requalified every
                                                     ten years rather
                                                     than every five
                                                     years using 100%
                                                     ultrasonic
                                                     examination. (modes
                                                     1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
21169-N.........  Americase, LLC.  172.200,         To authorize the
                                    172.700(a).      manufacture, mark,
                                                     sale, and use of
                                                     thermal packaging
                                                     for the purpose of
                                                     shipping lithium
                                                     batteries for
                                                     recycling.
                                                     Shipments are
                                                     provided limited
                                                     relief from the
                                                     shipping papers and
                                                     training required
                                                     in 49 CFR Subparts
                                                     C and H of Part 172
                                                     of the HMR. (modes
                                                     1, 2, 3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-00400 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-P


maximum extent possible during each emergency bypass event;
    10.3.4 An estimate of the emissions released during each
emergency bypass event. You must also show whether LEE status has
been retained or lost, based on the emissions estimate and the
results of the previous LEE retest; and
    10.3.5 If there were no emergency bypass events during the year,
a statement to that effect.
    11.0 Fuel Usage Information. Record the following monthly fuel
usage information:
    11.1 Calendar Month;
    11.2 Each Type of Fuel Used During the Calendar Month in the
Quarter;
    11.3 Quantity of Each Type of Fuel Combusted in Each Calendar
Month in the Quarter, with Units of Measure;
    11.3 New Fuel Type Indicator (if applicable); and
    11.4 Date of Performance Test Using the New Fuel (if
applicable).
    12.0 Malfunction Information (if applicable): If there was a
malfunction of the process equipment or control equipment during the
reporting period that caused (or may have caused) an exceedance of
an emissions or operating limit, record:
    12.1 Event Begin Date and Hour (if known);
    12.2 Event End Date and Hour;
    12.3 Malfunction Description; and
    12.4 Corrective Action.
    13.0 Deviations. If there were any deviations during the
reporting period, record:
    13.1 Unit, Common Stack, or Averaging Group ID;
    13.2 The nature of the deviation, as either:
    13.2.1 Emission limit exceeded;
    13.2.2 Operating limit exceeded;
    13.2.3 Work practice standard not met;
    13.2.4 Testing requirement not met;
    13.2.5 Monitoring requirement not met; or
    13.2.6 Other requirement not met.
    13.3 A description of the deviation, as follows:
    13.3.1 For a performance stack test or a 30- (or 90-) boiler
operating day rolling average that exceeds an emissions or operating
limit, record the parameter (e.g., HCl, Hg, PM), the limit that was
exceeded, and either the date of the non-complying performance test
or the beginning and ending dates of the non-complying rolling
average;
    13.3.2 If an unmonitored bypass stack was used during the
reporting period, record the total number of hours of bypass stack
usage;
    13.3.3 For failure to collect required monitoring data during
the reporting period, record the monitored parameter, the total
source operating time (hours), and the total number of hours of
monitor downtime for:
    <IP_ADDRESS> Monitoring system malfunctions;
    <IP_ADDRESS> Out-of-control periods;
    <IP_ADDRESS> Non-monitoring equipment malfunctions;
    <IP_ADDRESS> QA/QC activities (e.g., calibrations, performance
audits)
    <IP_ADDRESS> Routine maintenance
    <IP_ADDRESS> Other known causes; and
    <IP_ADDRESS> Unknown causes.
    13.3.4 If a performance stack test was due within the quarter
but was not done, record the parameter (e.g., HCl, PM), the test
deadline, and a statement that the test was not done as required;
    13.3.5 For a late performance stack test conducted during the
quarter, record the parameter, the test deadline, and the number of
days that elapsed between the test deadline and the test completion
date.
    13.4 Record any corrective actions taken in response to the
deviation.
    13.5 If there were no deviations during the quarter, record a
statement to that effect.
    14.0 Reference Method Data Elements. For each of the following
tests that is completed on and after January 1, 2024, you must
record and report the applicable electronic data elements in
sections 17 through 29 of this appendix, pertaining to the reference
method(s) used for the test (see section 16 of this appendix).
    14.1 Each quarterly, annual, or triennial stack test used to
demonstrate compliance (including 30- (or 90-) boiler operating day
Hg LEE tests and PM tests used to set operating limits for PM CPMS);
    14.2 Each relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of your Hg, HCl,
HF, or SO2 CEMS or each RATA of your Hg sorbent trap
monitoring system; and
    14.3 Each correlation test, relative response audit (RRA) and
each response correlation audit (RCA) of your PM CEMS.
    15.0 You must report the applicable data elements for each test
described in section 14 of this appendix in an XML format prescribed
by the Administrator.
    15.1 For each stack test completed during a particular calendar
quarter and contained in the quarterly compliance report, you must
submit along with the quarterly compliance report, the data elements
in sections 17 and 18 of this appendix (which are common to all
tests) and the applicable data elements in sections 19 through 31 of
this appendix associated with the reference method(s) used.
    15.2 For each RATA, PM CEMS correlation, RRA, or RCA, when you
use the ECMPS Client Tool to report the test results as required
under appendix A, B, or C to this subpart or, for SO2
RATAs under part 75 of this chapter, you must submit along with the
test results, the data elements in sections 17 and 18 of this
appendix and, for each test run, the data elements in sections 19
through 30 of this appendix that are associated with the reference
method(s) used.
    15.3 For each stack test, RATA, PM CEMS correlation, RRA, and
RCA, you must also provide the information described in section 31
of this appendix as a PDF file, either along with the quarterly
compliance report (for stack tests) or together with the test
results reported under appendix A, B, or C to this subpart or part
75 of this chapter (for RATAs, RRAs, RCAs, or PM CEMS correlations).
    16.0 Applicable Reference Methods. One or more of the following
EPA reference methods is needed for the tests described in sections
14.1 through 14.3 of this appendix: Method 1, Method 2, Method 3A,
Method 4, Method 5, Method 5D, Method 6C, Method 26, Method 26A,
Method 29, and/or Method

30B in appendices A-1 through A-4 and A-8 of part 60 of this
chapter.
    16.1 Application of EPA test Methods 1 and 2 in appendices A-1
of part 60 of this chapter. If you use periodic stack testing to
comply with an output-based emissions limit, you must determine the
stack gas flow rate during each performance test run in which EPA
test Method 5, 5D, 26, 26A, 29, or 30B in appendices A-3 and A-8 of
part 60 of this chapter is used, in order to convert the measured
pollutant concentration to units of the standard. For EPA test
Methods 5, 5D, 26A and 29, which require isokinetic sampling, the
delta-P readings made with the pitot tube and manometer at the
Method 1 traverse points, taken together with measurements of stack
gas temperature, pressure, diluent gas concentration (from a
separate EPA test Method 3A or 3B test) and moisture, provide the
necessary data for the EPA test Method 2 flow rate calculations.
Note that even if you elect to comply with a heat input-based
standard, when EPA test Method 5, 5D, 26A, or 29 is used, you must
still use EPA test Method 2 to determine the average stack gas
velocity (vs), which is needed for the percent isokinetic
calculation. The EPA test Methods 26 and 30B do not require
isokinetic sampling; therefore, when either of these methods is
used, if the stack gas flow rate is needed to comply with the
applicable output-based emissions limit, you must make a separate
EPA test Method 2 determination during each test run.
    16.2 Application of EPA test Method 3A in appendix A-2 of part
60 of this chapter. If you elect to perform periodic stack testing
to comply with a heat input-based emissions limit, a separate
measurement of the diluent gas (CO2 or O2)
concentration is required for each test run in which EPA test Method
5, 5D, 26, 26A, 29, or 30B in appendices A-3 and A-8 of part 60 of
this chapter is used, in order to convert the measured pollutant
concentration to units of the standard. The EPA test Method 3A is
the preferred CO2 or O2 test method, although
EPA test Method 3B may be used instead. Diluent gas measurements are
also needed for stack gas molecular weight determinations when using
EPA test Method 2 in appendix A-1 of part 60 of this chapter.
    16.3 Application of EPA test Method 4 in appendix A-3 of part 60
of this chapter. For performance stack tests, depending on which
equation is used to convert pollutant concentration to units of the
standard, measurement of the stack gas moisture content, using EPA
test Method 4, may also be required for each test run. The EPA test
Method 4 moisture data are also needed for the EPA test Method 2 in
appendix A-1 of part 60 of this chapter calculations (to determine
the molecular weight of the gas) and for the RATA of an Hg CEMS that
measures on a wet basis, when RM 30B is used. Other applications
that require EPA test Method 4 moisture determinations include:
RATAs of an SO2 monitor, when the reference method and
CEMS data are measured on a different moisture basis (wet or dry);
conversion of wet-basis pollutant concentrations to the units of a
heat input-based emissions limit when certain equations in EPA test
Method 19 in appendix A-7 of part 60 of this chapter are used (e.g.,
Eq. 19-3, 19-4, or 19-8); and stack gas molecular weight
determinations. When EPA test Method 5, 5D, 26A, or 29 in appendices
A-3 and A-8 of part 60 of this chapter is used for the performance
test, the EPA test Method 4 moisture determination may be made by
using the water collected in the impingers together with data from
the dry gas meter; alternatively, a separate EPA test Method 4
determination may be made. However, when EPA test Method 26 or 30B
in appendix A-8 of part 60 of this chapter is used, EPA test Method
4 must be performed separately.
    16.4 Applications of EPA test Methods 5 and 5D in appendix A-3
of part 60 of this chapter. The EPA test Method 5 (or, if applicable
5D) must be used for the following applications: to demonstrate
compliance with a filterable PM emissions limit; for PM tests used
to set operating limits for PM CPMS; and for the initial
correlations, RRAs and RCAs of a PM CEMS.
    16.5 Applications of EPA test Method 6C in appendix A-4 of part
60 of this chapter. If you elect to monitor SO2 emissions
from your coal-fired EGU as a surrogate for HCl, the SO2
CEMS must be installed, certified, operated, and maintained
according to 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 allows the use of EPA test
Methods 6, 6A, 6B, and 6C in appendix A-4 of part 60 of this chapter
for the required RATAs of the SO2 monitor. However, in
practice, only instrumental EPA test Method 6C is used.
    16.6 Applications of EPA test Methods 26 and 26A in appendix A-8
of pat 60 of this chapter. The EPA test Method 26A may be used for
quarterly HCl or HF stack testing, or for the RATA of an HCl or HF
CEMS. The EPA test Method 26 may be used for quarterly HCl or HF
stack testing; however, for the RATAs of an HCl monitor that is
following Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6 in appendices
B and F to part 60 of this chapter, EPA test Method 26 may only be
used if approved upon request.
    16.7 Applications of EPA test Method 29 in appendix A-8 of part
60 of this chapter. The EPA test Method 29 may be used for periodic
performance stack tests to determine compliance with individual or
total HAP metals emissions limits. For coal-fired EGUs, the total
HAP emissions limits exclude Hg.
    16.8 Applications of EPA test Method 30B in appendix A-8 of part
60 of this chapter. The EPA test Method 30B is used for 30- (or 90-)
boiler operating day Hg LEE tests and RATAs of Hg CEMS and sorbent
trap monitoring systems, and it may be used for quarterly Hg stack
testing (oil-fired EGUs, only).
    17.0 Facility and Test Company Information. In accordance with
Sec.  63.7(e)(3), a test is defined as three or more runs of one or
more EPA Reference Method(s) conducted to measure the amount of a
specific regulated pollutant, pollutants, or surrogates being
emitted from a particular EGU (or group of EGUs that share a common
stack), and to satisfy requirements of this subpart. On or after
January 1, 2024, you must report the data elements in sections 17
and 18, each time that you complete a required performance stack
test, RATA, PM CEMS correlation, RRA, or RCA at the affected EGU(s),
using EPA test Method 5, 5B, 5D, 6C, 26, 26A, 29, or 30B in
appendices A-3 and A-8 of part 60 of this chapter. You must also
report the applicable data elements in sections 19 through 25 of
this appendix for each test. If any separate, corresponding EPA test
Method 2, 3A, or 4 in appendices A-1 through A-3 of part 60 of this
chapter test is conducted to in order to convert a pollutant
concentration to the units of the applicable emission standard given
in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart or to convert pollutant
concentration from wet to dry basis (or vice-versa), you must also
report the applicable data elements in sections 26 through 31 of
this appendix.
    The applicable data elements in sections 17 through 31 of this
appendix must be submitted separately, in XML format, along with the
quarterly Compliance Report (for stack tests) or along with the
electronic test results submitted to the ECMPS Client Tool (for CMS
performance evaluations). The Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) or an
equivalent schema can be utilized to create this XML file. Note:
Ideally, for all of the tests completed at a given facility in a
particular calendar quarter, the applicable data elements in
sections 17 through 31 of this appendix should be submitted together
in one XML file. However, as shown in Table 8 to this subpart, the
timelines for submitting stack test results and CMS performance
evaluations are not identical. Therefore, for calendar quarters in
which both types of tests are completed, it may not be possible to
submit the applicable data elements for all of those tests in a
single XML file; separate submittals may be necessary to meet the
applicable reporting deadlines.
    17.1 Part;
    17.2 Subpart;
    17.3 ORIS Code;
    17.4 Facility Name;
    17.5 Facility Address;
    17.6 Facility City;
    17.7 Facility County;
    17.8 Facility State;
    17.9 Facility Zip Code;
    17.10 Facility Point of Contact;
    17.11 Facility Contact Phone Number;
    17.12 Facility Contact Email;
    17.13 EPA Facility Registration System (FRS) Number;
    17.14 Source Classification Code (SCC);
    17.15 State Facility ID;
    17.16 Project Number;
    17.17 Name of Test Company;
    17.18 Test Company Address;
    17.19 Test Company City;
    17.20 Test Company State;
    17.21 Test Company Zip Code;
    17.22 Test Company Point of Contact;
    17.23 Test Company Contact Phone Number;
    17.24 Test Company Contact Email; and
    17.25 Test Comment (Optional).
    18.0 Source Information Data Elements. You must report the
following data elements, as applicable, for each source for which at
least one test is included in the XML file:
    18.1 Source ID (Sampling Location);
    18.2 Stack (Duct) Diameter (Circular Stack) (in.);
    18.3 Equivalent Diameter (Rectangular Duct or Stack) (in.);

    18.4 Area of Stack;
    18.5 Control Device Code; and
    18.6 Control Device Description.
    19.0 Run-Level and Lab Data Elements for EPA test Methods 5, 5B,
5D, 26A, and 29 of Appendices A-3 and A-8 of Part 60 of this
Chapter. You must report the appropriate Source ID (i.e., Data
Element 18.1) and the following data elements, as applicable, for
each run of each performance stack test, PM CEMS correlation test,
RATA, RRA, or RCA conducted using isokinetic EPA test Method 5, 5B,
5D, or 26A. If your EGU is oil-fired and you use EPA test Method 26A
to conduct stack tests for both HCl and HF, you must report these
data elements separately for each pollutant. When you use EPA test
Method 29 to measure the individual HAP metals, total filterable
HAPs metals and total HAP metals, report only the run-level data
elements (sections 19.1, 19.3 through 19.30, and 19.38 through 19.41
of this appendix), and the point-level and lab data elements in
sections 20 and 21 of this appendix:
    19.1 Test Number;
    19.2 Pollutant Name;
    19.3 EPA Test Method;
    19.4 Run Number;
    19.5 Corresponding Reference Method(s), if applicable;
    19.6 Corresponding Reference Method(s) Run Number, if
applicable;
    19.7 Number of Traverse Points;
    19.8 Run Begin Date;
    19.9 Run Start Time (Clock Time Start);
    19.10 Run End Date;
    19.11 Run End Time (Clock Time End);
    19.12 Barometric Pressure;
    19.13 Static Pressure;
    19.14 Cumulative Elapsed Sampling Time;
    19.15 Percent O2;
    19.16 Percent CO2;
    19.17 Pitot Tube ID;
    19.18 Pitot Tube Calibration Coefficient;
    19.19 Nozzle Calibration Diameter;
    19.20 F-Factor (Fd, Fw, or Fc);
    19.21 Calibration Coefficient of Dry Gas Meter (Y);
    19.22 Total Volume of Liquid Collected in Impingers and Silica
Gel;
    19.23 Percent Moisture--Actual;
    19.24 Dry Molecular Weight of Stack Gas;
    19.25 Wet Molecular Weight of Stack Gas;
    19.26 Initial Reading of Dry Gas Meter Volume (dcf);
    19.27 Final Reading of Dry Gas Meter Volume (dcf);
    19.28 Stack Gas Velocity--fps;
    19.29 Stack Gas Flow Rate--dscfm;
    19.30 Type of Fuel;
    19.31 Pollutant Mass Collected (value);
    19.32 Pollutant Mass Unit of Measure;
    19.33 Detection Limit Flag;
    19.34 Pollutant Concentration;
    19.35 Pollutant Concentration Unit of Measure;
    19.36 Pollutant Emission Rate;
    19.37 Pollutant Emission Rate Units of Measure (in Units of the
Standard);
    19.38 Compliance Limit Basis (Heat Input or Electrical Output);
    19.39 Heat Input or Electrical Output Unit of Measure;
    19.40 Process Parameter (value);
    19.41 Process Parameter Unit of Measure;
    19.42 Converted Concentration for PM CEMS only; and
    19.43 Converted Concentration Units (Units of Correlation for PM
CEMS).
    20.0 Point-Level Data Elements for EPA test Methods 5, 5B, 5D,
26A, & 29 in Appendices A-3 and A-8 of Part 60 of this Chapter. To
link the point-level data with the run data in the xml schema, you
must report the Source ID (i.e., Data Element 18.1), EPA Test Method
(Data Element 19.3), Run Number (Data Element 19.4), and Run Begin
Date (Data Element 19.8) with the following point-level data
elements for each run of each performance stack test, PM CEMS
correlation test, RATA, RRA, or RCA conducted using isokinetic EPA
test Method 5, 5B, 5D, 26A, or 29. Note that these data elements are
required for all EPA test Method 29 applications, whether the method
is being used to measure the total or individual HAP metals
concentrations:
    20.1 Traverse Point ID;
    20.2 Stack Temperature;
    20.3 Differential Pressure Reading ([Delta]P);
    20.4 Orifice Pressure Reading ([Delta]H);
    20.5 Dry Gas Meter Inlet Temperature;
    20.6 Dry Gas Meter Outlet Temperature; and
    20.7 Filter Temperature.
    21.0 Laboratory Results for EPA test Method 29 in Appendix A-8
of Part 60 of this Chapter--Total or Individual Multiple HAP Metals.
If you use EPA test Method 29 and elect to comply with the total or
individual HAP metals standards, you must report run-level data
elements 19.1 through 19.34 in section 19 of this appendix, and the
point-level data elements in section 20 of this appendix. To link
the laboratory data with the run data in the xml schema, you must
report the Source ID (i.e., Data Element 18.1), EPA Test Method
(Data Element 19.3), Run Number (Data Element 19.4), and Run Begin
Date (Data Element 19.8) with the results of the laboratory
analyses. Regardless of whether you elect to comply with the total
HAP metals standard or the individual HAP metals standard, you must
report the front half catch, the back half catch and the sum of the
front and back half catches collected with EPA test Method 29 for
each individual HAP metal and for the total HAP metals. The list of
individual HAP metals is Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium
Chromium, Cobalt, Lead, Manganese, Nickel, Selenium and Mercury (if
applicable). You must also calculate and report the pollutant
emission rates(s) in relation to the standard(s) with which you have
elected to comply and the units specified in Table 5 to this subpart
as follows:
    21.1 Each Individual HAP metal total mass collected:
    21.1.1 Pollutant Name;
    21.1.2 Pollutant Mass Collected;
    21.1.3 Pollutant Mass Units of Measure; and
    21.1.4 Detection Limit Flag.
    21.2 Each Individual HAP metal Front Half:
    21.2.1 Pollutant Name;
    21.2.2 Pollutant Mass Collected;
    21.2.3 Pollutant Mass Units of Measure; and
    21.2.4 Detection Limit Flag.
    21.3 Each Individual HAP metal Back Half:
    21.3.1 Pollutant Name;
    21.3.2 Pollutant Mass Collected;
    21.3.3 Pollutant Mass Units of Measure; and
    21.3.4 Detection Limit Flag.
    21.4 Each Individual HAP metal concentration:
    21.4.1 Pollutant Name;
    21.4.2 Pollutant Concentration; and
    21.4.3 Pollutant Concentration Units of Measure.
    21.5 Each Individual HAP metal emission rate in units of the
standard:
    21.5.1 Pollutant Name
    21.5.2 Pollutant Emission Rate and
    21.5.3 Pollutant Emission Rate Units of Measure.
    21.6 Each Individual HAP metal emission rate in units of lbs/
MMBTU or lbs/MW (per Table 5 to this subpart):
    21.6.1 Pollutant Name;
    21.6.2 Pollutant Emission Rate; and
    21.6.3 Pollutant Emission Rate Units of Measure.
    21.7 Total Filterable HAPs metals mass collected:
    21.7.1 Pollutant Name;
    21.7.2 Pollutant Mass Collected;
    21.7.3 Pollutant Mass Units of Measure; and
    21.7.4 Detection Limit Flag.
    21.8 Total Filterable HAPs metals concentration:
    21.8.1 Pollutant Name;
    21.8.2 Pollutant Concentration; and
    21.8.3 Pollutant Concentration Units of Measure.
    21.9 Total Filterable HAPs metals in units of lbs/MMBtu or lbs/
MW (per Table 5 to this subpart):
    21.9.1 Pollutant Name;
    21.9.2 Pollutant Emission Rate; and
    21.9.3 Pollutant Emission Rate Units of Measure.
    21.10 Total HAPs metals mass collected:
    21.10.1 Pollutant Name;
    21.10.2 Pollutant Mass Collected;
    21.10.3 Pollutant Mass Units of Measure; and
    21.10.4 Detection Limit Flag.
    21.11 Total HAPs metals concentration
    21.11.1 Pollutant Name;
    21.11.2 Pollutant Concentration; and
    21.11.3 Pollutant Concentration Units of Measure.
    21.12 Total HAPs metals Emission Rate in Units of the Standard:
    21.12.1 Pollutant Name;
    21.12.2 Pollutant Emission Rate; and
    21.12.3 Pollutant Emission Rate Units of Measure.
    21.13 Total HAPs metals Emission Rate in lbs/MMBtu or lbs/MW
(per Table 5 to this subpart):
    21.13.1 Pollutant Name;
    21.13.2 Pollutant Emission Rate; and
    21.13.3 Pollutant Emission Rate Units of Measure.
    22.0 Run-Level and Lab Data Elements for EPA test Method 26 in
Appendix A-8 to Part 60 of this Chapter. If you use EPA test Method
26, you must report the Source ID (i.e., Data Element 18.1) and the
following run-level data elements for each test run. If

your EGU is oil-fired and you use EPA test Method 26 to conduct
stack tests for both HCl and HF, you must report these data elements
separately for each pollutant:
    22.1 Test Number;
    22.2 Pollutant Name;
    22.3 EPA Test Method;
    22.4 Run Number;
    22.5 Corresponding Reference Method(s), if applicable;
    22.6 Corresponding Reference Method(s) Run Number, if
applicable;
    22.7 Number of Traverse Points;
    22.8 Run Begin Date;
    22.9 Run Start Time (Clock Start Time);
    22.10 Run End Date;
    22.11 Run End Time (Clock End Time);
    22.12 Barometric Pressure;
    22.13 Cumulative Elapsed Sampling Time;
    22.14 Calibration Coefficient of Dry Gas Meter (Y);
    22.15 Initial Reading of Dry Gas Meter Volume (dcf);
    22.16 Final Reading of Dry Gas Meter Volume (dcf);
    22.17 Percent O2;
    22.18 Percent CO2;
    22.19 Type of Fuel;
    22.20 F-Factor (Fd, Fw, or Fc);
    22.21 Pollutant Mass Collected (value);
    22.22 Pollutant Mass Units of Measure;
    22.23 Detection Limit Flag;
    22.24 Pollutant Concentration;
    22.25 Pollutant Concentration Unit of Measure;
    22.26 Compliance Limit Basis (Heat Input or Electrical Output);
    22.27 Heat Input or Electrical Output Unit of Measure;
    22.28 Process Parameter (value);
    22.29 Process Parameter Unit of Measure;
    22.30 Pollutant Emission Rate; and
    22.31 Pollutant Emission Rate Units of Measure (in the Units of
the Standard).
    23.0 Point-Level Data Elements for EPA test Method 26 in
Appendix A-8 to Part 60 of this Chapter. To link the point-level
data in this Section with the run-level data in the XML schema, you
must report the Source ID (i.e., Data Element 18.1), EPA Test Method
(Data Element 22.3), Run Number (Data Element 22.4), and Run Begin
Date (Data Element 22.8) from section 22 of this appendix and the
following point-level data elements for each run of each EPA test
Method 26 test:
    23.1 Traverse Point ID;
    23.2 Filter Temperature; and
    23.3 Dry Gas Meter Temperature.
    24.0 Run-Level Data for EPA test Method 30B in Appendix A-8 to
Part 60 of this Chapter. You must report Source ID (i.e., Data
Element 18.1) and the following run-level data elements for each EPA
test Method 30B test run:
    24.1 Test Number;
    24.2 Pollutant Name;
    24.3 EPA Test Method;
    24.4 Run Number;
    24.5 Corresponding Reference Method(s), if applicable;
    24.6 Corresponding Reference Method(s) Run Number, if
applicable;
    24.7 Number of Traverse Points;
    24.8 Run Begin Date;
    24.9 Run Start Time (Clock Time Start);
    24.10 Run End Date;
    24.11 Run End Time (Clock Time End);
    24.12 Barometric Pressure;
    24.13 Percent O2;
    24.14 Percent CO2;
    24.15 Cumulative Elapsed Sampling Time;
    24.16 Calibration Coefficient of Dry Gas Meter Box A (Y);
    24.17 Initial Reading of Dry Gas Meter Volume (A);
    24.18 Final Reading of Dry Gas Meter Volume (A);
    24.19 Calibration Coefficient of Dry Gas Meter Box B (Y);
    24.20 Initial Reading of Dry Gas Meter Volume (B);
    24.21 Final Reading of Dry Gas Meter Volume (B);
    24.22 Gas Sample Volume Units of Measure;
    24.23 Post-Run Leak Rate (A);
    24.24 Post-Run Leak Check Vacuum (A);
    24.25 Post-Run Leak Rate (B);
    24.26 Post-Run Leak Check Vacuum (B);
    24.27 Sorbent Trap ID (A);
    24.28 Pollutant Mass Collected, Section 1 (A);
    24.29 Pollutant Mass Collected, Section 2 (A);
    24.30 Mass of Spike on Sorbent Trap A;
    24.31 Total Pollutant Mass Trap A;
    24.32 Sorbent Trap ID (B);
    24.33 Pollutant Mass Collected, Section 1 (B);
    24.34 Pollutant Mass Collected, Section 2 (B);
    24.35 Mass of Spike on Sorbent Trap B;
    24.36 Total Pollutant Mass Trap B;
    24.37 Pollutant Mass Units of Measure;
    24.38 Pollutant Average Concentration;
    24.39 Pollutant Concentration Units of Measure;
    24.40 Method Detection Limit (MDL);
    24.41 Percent Spike Recovery;
    24.42 Type of Fuel;
    24.43 F-Factor (Fd, Fw, or Fc);
    24.44 Compliance Limit Basis (Heat Input or Electrical Output);
    24.45 Heat Input or Electrical Output Unit of Measure;
    24.46 Process Parameter (value);
    24.47 Process Parameter Unit of Measure;
    24.48 Pollutant Emission Rate; and
    24.49 Pollutant Emission Rate Unit of Measure (in the Units of
the Standard).
    25.0 Point-Level Data Elements for EPA test Method 30B in
Appendix A-8 to Part 60 of this Chapter. You must report the Source
ID (i.e., Data Element 18.1), EPA Test Method (Data Element 24.3),
Run Number (Data Element 24.4), and Run Begin Date (Data Element
24.8) and the following point-level data elements for each run of
each EPA test Method 30B test:
    25.1 Traverse Point ID;
    25.2 Dry Gas Meter Temperature (A);
    25.3 Sample Flow Rate (A) (L/min);
    25.4 Dry Gas Meter Temperature (B); and
    25.5 Sample Flow Rate (B) (L/min).
    26.0 Pre-Run Data Elements for EPA test Methods 3A and 6C in
Appendices A-2 and A-4 of Part 60 of this Chapter. You must report
the Source ID (i.e., Data Element 18.1) and the following Pre-run
data elements for each SO2 RATA using instrumental EPA
test Method 6C, and for each instrumental EPA test Method 3A
O2 or CO2 test that is performed to convert a
pollutant concentration to the units of measure of the applicable
emission unit of standard in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart:
    26.1 Test Number;
    26.2 EPA Test Method;
    26.3 Calibration Gas Cylinder Analyte;
    26.4 Cylinder Gas Units of Measure;
    26.5 Date of Calibration;
    26.6 Calibration Low-Level Gas Cylinder ID;
    26.7 Calibration Low-Level Gas Concentration;
    26.8 Calibration Low-Level Cylinder Expiration Date;
    26.9 Calibration Mid-Level Gas Cylinder ID;
    26.10 Calibration Mid-Level Gas Concentration;
    26.11 Calibration Mid-Level Cylinder Expiration Date;
    26.12 Calibration High-Level Gas Cylinder ID;
    26.13 Calibration High-Level Gas Concentration;
    26.14 Calibration High-Level Cylinder Expiration Date;
    26.15 Calibration Span;
    26.16 Low-Level Gas Response;
    26.17 Low-Level Calibration Error;
    26.18 Low-Level APS Flag;
    26.19 Mid-Level Gas Response;
    26.20 Mid-Level Calibration Error;
    26.21 Mid-Level APS Flag;
    26.22 High-Level Gas Response;
    26.23 High-Level Calibration Error; and
    26.24 High-Level APS Flag.
    27.0 Run-Level Data Elements for EPA test Methods 3A and 6C in
Appendices A-2 and A-4 of Part 60 of this Chapter. You must report
the Source ID (i.e., Data Element 18.1) and following run-level data
elements for each run of each SO2 RATA using instrumental
EPA test Method 6C, and for each run of each corresponding
instrumental EPA test Method 3A test that is performed to convert a
pollutant concentration to the applicable emission unit of standard
in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart:
    27.1 Test Number;
    27.2 Pollutant or Analyte Name;
    27.3 EPA Test Method;
    27.4 Run Number;
    27.5 Corresponding Reference Method(s), if applicable;
    27.6 Corresponding Reference Method(s) Run Number(s), if
applicable;
    27.7 Number of Traverse Points;
    27.8 Run Begin Date;
    27.9 Run Start Time (Clock Time Start);
    27.10 Run End Date;
    27.11 Run End Time (Clock Time End);
    27.12 Cumulative Elapsed Sampling Time;
    27.13 Upscale (mid or high) Gas Level;
    27.14 Pre-Run Low-Level Response;
    27.15 Pre-Run Low-Level System Bias;
    27.16 Pre-Run Low-Level Bias APS Flag;
    27.17 Pre-Run Upscale (mid or high) Response;
    27.18 Pre-Run Upscale (mid or high) System Bias;
    27.19 Pre-Run Upscale (mid or high) Bias APS Flag;

    27.20 Post-Run Low-Level Response;
    27.21 Post-Run Low-Level System Bias;
    27.22 Post-Run Low-Level Bias APS Flag;
    27.23 Post-Run Low-Level Drift;
    27.24 Post-Run Low-Level Drift APS Flag;
    27.25 Post-Run Upscale (mid or high) Response;
    27.26 Post-Run Upscale (mid or high) System Bias;
    27.27 Post-Run Upscale (mid or high) System Bias APS Flag;
    27.28 Post-Run Upscale (mid or high) Drift;
    27.29 Post-Run Upscale (mid or high) Drift APS Flag;
    27.30 Unadjusted Raw Emissions Average Concentration;
    27.31 Calculated Average Concentration, Adjusted for Bias
(Cgas);
    27.32 Concentration Units of Measure (Dry or wet);
    27.33 Type of Fuel;
    27.34 Process Parameter (value); and
    27.35 Process Parameter Units of Measure.
    28.0 Run-Level Data Elements for EPA test Method 2 in Appendix
A-1 of Part 60 of this Chapter. When you make a separate
determination of the stack gas flow rate using EPA test Method 2
separately, corresponding to a pollutant reference method test,
i.e., when data from the pollutant reference method cannot determine
the stack gas flow rate, you must report the Source ID (i.e., 18.1)
and following run-level data elements for each EPA test Method 2
test run:
    28.1 Test Number;
    28.2 EPA Test Method;
    28.3 Run Number;
    28.4 Number of Traverse Points;
    28.5 Run Begin Date;
    28.6 Run Start Time (Clock Time Start);
    28.7 Run End Date;
    28.8 Run End Time (Clock Time End);
    28.9 Pitot Tube ID;
    28.10 Pitot Tube Calibration Coefficient;
    28.11 Barometric Pressure;
    28.12 Static Pressure;
    28.13 Percent O2;
    28.14 Percent CO2;
    28.15 Percent Moisture--actual;
    28.16 Dry Molecular Weight of Stack Gas;
    28.17 Wet Molecular Weight of Stack Gas;
    28.18 Stack Gas Velocity--fps; and
    28.19 Stack Gas Flow Rate--dscfm.
    29.0 Point-Level Data Elements for EPA test Method 2 in Appendix
A-1 of Part 60 of this Chapter. For each run of each separate EPA
test Method 2 test, you must report the Source ID (i.e., Data
Element 18.1), EPA Test Method (Data Element 28.2), Run Number (Data
Element 28.3), and Run Begin Date (Data Element 28.5) and the
following point-level data elements:
    29.1 Traverse Point ID;
    29.2 Stack Temperature; and
    29.3 Differential Pressure Reading ([Delta]P).
    30.0 Run-Level Data Elements for EPA test Method 4 in Appendix
A-3 of Part 60 of this Chapter. When you make a separate EPA test
Method 4 determination of the stack gas moisture content
corresponding to a pollutant reference method test, i.e., when data
from the pollutant reference method cannot determine the moisture
content, you must report the Source ID (i.e., Data Element 18.1) and
the following run-level data elements for each EPA test Method 4
test run:
    30.1 Test Number;
    30.2 EPA Test Method;
    30.3 Run Number;
    30.4 Number of Traverse Points;
    30.5 Run Begin Date;
    30.6 Run Start Time (Clock Time Start);
    30.7 Run End Date;
    30.8 Run End Time (Clock Time End);
    30.9 Barometric Pressure;
    30.10 Calibration Coefficient of Dry Gas Meter (Y);
    30.11 Volume of Water Collected in Impingers and Silica Gel;
    30.12 Percent Moisture-actual;
    30.13 Initial Reading of Dry Gas Meter Volume (dcf);
    30.14 Final Reading of Dry Gas Meter Volume (dcf); and
    30.15 Dry Gas Meter Temperature (Average).
    31.0 Other Information for Each Test or Test Series. You must
provide each test included in the XML data file described in this
appendix with supporting documentation, in a PDF file submitted
concurrently with the XML file, such that all the data required to
be reported by Sec.  63.7(g) are provided. That supporting data
include but are not limited to diagrams showing the location of the
test site and the sampling points, laboratory report(s) including
analytical calibrations, calibrations of source sampling equipment,
calibration gas cylinder certificates, raw instrumental data, field
data sheets, QA data (e.g., field recovery spikes) and any required
audit results and stack testers' credentials (if applicable). The
applicable data elements in Sec.  63.10031(f)(6)(i) through (xii) of
this section must be entered into ECMPS with each PDF submittal; the
test number(s) (see Sec.  63.10031(f)(6)(xi)) must be included. The
test number(s) must match the test number(s) in sections 19 through
31 of this appendix (as applicable).

[FR Doc. 2020-07471 Filed 4-9-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1053-1054]
[FR Doc No: X10-290108]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0417; FRL-9101-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Surface Coating of
Plastic Parts for Business Machines, EPA ICR Number 1093.09, OMB
Control Number 2060-0162

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 8,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0417, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2801T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and

Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-0296; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32580), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0417, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business
Machines
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1093.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0162.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2010.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Surface
Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines were promulgated on
January 29, 1988. These standards apply to each spray booth that
applies prime coats, color coats, texture coats or touch-up coats in
industrial surface coating operations that apply coatings to plastic
parts for use in the manufacture of business machines.
    Affected sources are required to complete initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators 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, in general, of all sources
subject to NSPS.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 35
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 which have subsequently changed; 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.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Business machine manufacturers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, quarterly, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 978.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $92,296 in labor costs and $0 in
capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease estimated burden
currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This
decrease was due to a change in the adjustments to the estimates to
correct a mathematical error.

    Dated: December 24, 2009.
Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-148 Filed 1-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P