[Federal Register: October 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 61715-61716]
[DOCID:fr06oc10-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

September 23, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1327-000.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Pipeline Company submits tariff filing per
154.203: Addition of Multiple RDC Levels During Term of Agreement to be
effective 10/23/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100922-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 4, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1328-000.
    Applicants: Central New York Oil and Gas, LLC.
    Description: Central New York Oil and Gas, LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Central New York Oil And Gas FERC Gas Tariff 1st
Revised Volume 1 to be effective 9/22/2010.

    Filed Date: 09/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100922-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 4, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1329-000.
    Applicants: Steuben Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Steuben Gas Storage Company submits tariff filing per
154.203: Steuben Storage FERC Gas Tariff 1st Revised Volume 1 to be
effective 9/22/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100922-5098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 4, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1330-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Varying TQ to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100922-5139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 4, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1331-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Non-Conforming Agreement--Jay Bee Production to be
effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100923-5010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1332-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Revision to GTC Section 20--Discounts to be
effective 10/23/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100923-5020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 5, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1333-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.403(d)(2): LNG Fuel Tracker to be effective 11/1/
2010.
    Filed Date: 09/23/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100923-5057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 5, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Sec.  385.211 and
Sec.  385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a
subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously
intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing
a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25083 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 39)]
[Notices]
[Page 8981-8982]
[DOCID:fr28fe07-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-407-000]

High Prairie Wind Farm II, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

February 22, 2007.
    High Prairie Wind Farm, LLC (High Prairie) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The
proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy and
capacity at market-based rates. High Prairie also requested waivers of
various Commission regulations. In particular, High Prairie requested
that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by High
Prairie
    On February 20, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the
requests for blanket approval under part 34. The Director's order also
stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest
the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by High Prairie should file a motion to intervene or protest
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is March 26, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
High Prairie is authorized to issue securities

and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety,
or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided
that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the
corporate purposes of High Prairie, compatible with the public
interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of High Prairie's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3489 Filed 2-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36764-36765]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC13-104-000.
    Applicants: Chisholm View Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Application for Authorization Under
Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Chisholm View Wind Project,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130606-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: EC13-105-000.
    Applicants: Prairie Rose Wind, LLC, Prairie Rose Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Joint Application for Authorization Under
Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Prairie Rose Transmission, LLC,
et. al.
    Filed Date: 6/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130606-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG13-38-000.
    Applicants: Chestnut Flats Lessee, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Chestnut Flats Lessee, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130606-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/13.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-687-003.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: 2013 Annual Update Filing--GFA to be effective 6/1/
2013.
    Filed Date: 6/3/13.
    Accession Number: 20130603-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1249-002.
    Applicants: Myotis Power Marketing LLC.
    Description: Supplement to 05/29/2013 Myotis Power Marketing LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 5/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130530-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1356-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, Inc.
    Description: Revised Annual Update of Cost Factors for Duke Energy
Florida, Inc. to be effective 5/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130606-5028.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1640-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Refund Report of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in
compliance with Final Audit Report [PA12-8].
    Filed Date: 6/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20130605-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/13.

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

    Dated: June 6, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14595 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 56811-56813]
[DOCID:fr04oc07-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-28007; 812-13426]

Van Eck Associates Corporation, et al.; Notice of Application

September 28, 2007.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application to amend a prior order under section 6(c)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), 22(e) and 24(d) of the Act and rule
22c-1 under the Act, under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an
exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, and under
sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an

exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act.

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

Summary of Application:  Applicants request an order to amend a prior
order that permits: (a) Open-end management investment companies, whose
series are based on equity securities indices (``Equity Funds''), to
issue shares of limited redeemability (``Shares''); (b) secondary
market transactions in the Shares of the Equity Funds to occur at
negotiated prices; (c) dealers to sell Shares of Equity Funds to
purchasers in the secondary market unaccompanied by a prospectus when
prospectus delivery is not required by the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act''); (d) certain affiliated persons of the Equity
Funds to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the
Equity Funds in connection with the purchase and redemption of
aggregations of Shares; (e) certain registered management investment
companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of
investment companies as the Equity Funds to acquire Shares; and (f)
under certain circumstances, the Equity Funds that track certain
foreign equity securities indices to pay redemption proceeds more than
seven days after the tender of Shares (the ``Prior Order'').\1\
Applicants seek to amend the Prior Order in order to offer additional
series based on fixed income securities indices (the ``New Funds'' and
together with the Equity Funds, the ``Funds'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Van Eck Associates Corporation, et al., Investment Company
Act Release Nos. 27283 (Apr. 7, 2006) (notice) and 27311 (May 2,
2006) (order), subsequently amended by Van Eck Associates
Corporation, et al., Investment Company Act Release Nos. 27694 (Jan.
31, 2007) (notice) and 27742 (Feb. 27, 2007) (order).

Applicants:  Van Eck Associates Corporation (``Adviser''), Market
Vectors ETF Trust (``Trust''), and Van Eck Securities Corporation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(``Distributor'').

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on September 25, 2007, and
amended on September 28, 2007.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on October 23, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 99 Park Avenue, 8th
Floor, New York, NY 10016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Kim Gilmer, Branch Chief, or
Michael W. Mundt, Assistant Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of
Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-0102 (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust is an open-end management investment company
registered under the Act and organized as a Delaware statutory trust.
The Trust is organized as a series fund with multiple series. The
Adviser, an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''), will serve as investment adviser to the
New Funds. The Adviser may retain sub-advisers (``Sub-Advisers'') to
manage the assets of a New Fund. Any Sub-Adviser will be registered
under the Advisers Act. The Distributor, a broker-dealer registered
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act''), will
serve as the principal underwriter and distributor of each New Fund's
Shares.
    2. The Trust is currently permitted to offer Funds based on equity
securities indices in reliance on the Prior Order. Applicants seek to
amend the Prior Order to permit the Trust to offer the New Funds that,
except as described in the application, would operate in a manner
identical to the Equity Funds that are subject to the Prior Order.
    3. Each New Fund will invest in fixed-income securities
(``Portfolio Securities'') selected to correspond generally to the
price and yield performance of a fixed income securities index
(``Underlying Index'').\2\ No entity that creates, compiles, sponsors,
or maintains an Underlying Index is or will be an affiliated person, as
defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, or an affiliated person of an
affiliated person, of the Trust, the Adviser, any Sub-Adviser, the
Distributor, or a promoter of a New Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The New Funds identified in the application would have as
their Underlying Indexes: the Lehman Brothers Short Managed Money
Municipal Index, Lehman Brothers Intermediate Managed Money
Municipal Index, Lehman Brothers Long Managed Money Municipal Index,
Lehman Brothers Non-Investment Grade Municipal Index, Lehman
Brothers Managed Money Municipal California Index, and the Lehman
Brothers Managed Money Municipal New York Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The investment objective of each New Fund will be to provide
investment results that correspond, before expenses, generally to the
price and yield performance of the relevant Underlying Index. The
Adviser may fully replicate a New Fund's relevant Underlying Index or
use a representative sampling strategy where the New Fund will seek to
hold a representative sample of the component securities of the
Underlying Index.
    5. Under the Prior Order, applicants stated that each Equity Fund
would invest at least 95% of its total assets in the component
securities of its underlying index and may invest up to 5% of its
assets in money market instruments, money market funds, futures
contracts, options, options on futures contracts, swap contracts, cash
and cash equivalents as well as in stocks not included in its
underlying index but which the Adviser believes will help the Equity
Fund track its underlying index. Applicants seek to amend the Prior
Order to provide that each Fund generally will invest at least 80% or
90% of its total assets, as disclosed in the relevant prospectus, in
the securities that comprise the relevant Underlying Index, and at
times may invest up to 20% of its total assets in certain futures,
options, and swap contracts, cash and cash equivalents, as well as
securities not included in its Underlying Index which the Adviser
believes will help the Fund track its Underlying Index. At all times, a
New Fund will hold, in the aggregate, at least 80% of its total assets
in component securities and investments that have economic
characteristics that are substantially identical to the economic
characteristics of the component securities of its Underlying Index.
Applicants expect that each New Fund will have a tracking error
relative to the performance of its respective Underlying Index of less
than 5 percent.
    6. Applicants state that the New Funds will comply with the federal
securities laws in accepting a deposit of a portfolio of securities
designated by the Adviser to correspond generally to the price and
yield of the New Fund's Underlying Index (``Deposit

Securities'') \3\ and satisfying redemptions with portfolio securities
of the New Fund (``Fund Securities''), including that the Deposit
Securities and Fund Securities are sold in transactions that would be
exempt from registration under the Securities Act.\4\ The specified
Deposit Securities and Fund Securities generally will correspond pro
rata, to the extent practicable, to the Portfolio Securities of a New
Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Applicants state that a cash-in-lieu amount will replace any
``to-be-announced'' (``TBA'') transaction that is listed as a
Deposit Security or Fund Security of any New Fund. A TBA transaction
is a method of trading mortgage-backed securities where the buyer
and seller agree upon general trade parameters such as agency,
settlement date, par amount and price. The actual pools delivered
generally are determined two days prior to the settlement date. The
amount of substituted cash in the case of TBA transactions will be
equivalent to the value of the TBA transaction listed as a Deposit
Security or Fund Security.
    \4\ In accepting Deposit Securities and satisfying redemptions
with Fund Securities that are restricted securities eligible for
resale pursuant to rule 144A under the Securities Act, the New Funds
will comply with the conditions of rule 144A, including in
satisfying redemptions with such rule 144A eligible restricted Fund
Securities. The prospectus for a New Fund will also state that an
authorized participant that is not a ``Qualified Institutional
Buyer'' as defined in rule 144A under the Securities Act, will not
be able to receive, as part of a redemption, restricted securities
eligible for resale under rule 144A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Applicants state that the New Funds will operate in a manner
identical to the operation of the existing Funds in the Prior Order,
except as specifically noted by applicants (and summarized in this
notice). The New Funds will comply with the terms and provisions of the
Prior Order except as modified by this application. Applicants agree
that any amended order granting the requested relief will be subject to
the same conditions as those imposed by the Prior Order. Applicants
believe that the requested relief continues to meet the necessary
exemptive standards.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-19630 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 37277-37278]
[DOCID:fr09jy07-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 19d-3; SEC File No. 270-245; OMB Control No. 3235-0204.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
     Rule 19d-3 (17 CFR 240.19d-3)--Applications for Review of
Final Disciplinary Sanctions, Denials of Membership, Participation or
Association, or Prohibitions or Limitations of Access to Services
Imposed by Self-Regulatory Organizations.
    Rule 19d-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.) prescribes the form and content of applications to the
Commission by persons desiring stays of final disciplinary sanctions
and summary action of self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') for
which the Commission is the appropriate regulatory agency. The
Commission uses the information provided in the application filed
pursuant to Rule 19d-3 to review final actions taken by SROs including:
(1) Disciplinary sanctions; (2) denials of membership, participation or
association; and (3) prohibitions on or limitations of access to SRO
services.
    It is estimated that approximately 15 respondents will utilize this
application procedure annually, with a total burden of 270 hours, for
all respondents to complete all submissions. This figure is based upon
past submissions. The staff estimates that the average number of hours
necessary to comply with the requirements of Rule 19d-3 is 18 hours.
The average cost per hour, to complete each submission, is
approximately $101. Therefore, the total cost of compliance for all
respondents is $27,270. (15 submissions x 18 hours x $101 per hour).
    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 control number.
    General comments regarding the estimated burden hours should be
directed to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information

Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria VA 22312 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of

this notice.

    Dated: July 2, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-13177 Filed 7-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Identification of the Information Collection ( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection.

" Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP." This is a revision of the Information Collection Request ( ICR) submitted for the proposed rule and the tracking number 2050.02 has been assigned.

( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract.

Potential respondents are owners or operators of taconite iron ore processing facilities that are major sources of hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions. The final rule applies to existing and new ore crushing and handling operations, ore dryers, indurating furnaces, and finished pellet handling operations at these facilities. The particulate matter ( PM)

emission limits for each new and existing affected source are shown in the table below. Each PM emission limit is expressed in grains of PM per dry standard cubic feet of exhaust gas ( gr/ dscf).

Affected sources have 3 years from the promulgation date to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limits. Operation limits apply for control devices to ensure these emission limits are met. If the source requires more time to comply they may submit a compliance extension request. 2 Affected Source Existing New Ore Crushing and Handling 0.008 gr/ dscf 0.005 gr/ dscf Straight Grate Indurating Furnace Processing Magnetite 0.01 gr/ dscf 0.006 gr/ dscf Grate Kiln Indurating Furnace Processing Magnetite 0.01 gr/ dscf 0.006 gr/ dscf Grate Kiln Indurating Furnace Processing Hematite 0.03 gr/ dscf 0.018 gr/ dscf Ore Dryers 0.052 gr/ dscf 0.025 gr/ dscf Finished Pellet Handling 0.008 gr/ dscf 0.005 gr/ dscf Affected sources are required to conduct an initial performance test no later than 180 days after the compliance date to demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limit and establish operating limits for control devices. For ore crushing and handling units and finished pellet handling units, the rule allows initial testing to be conducted on representative emission units rather than on each emission unit. For ore dryers and indurating furnaces, the rule requires that performance tests be conducted on all corresponding stacks. The facility must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 days prior to each test. It was assumed that all initial performance tests will be conducted in the first three years after promulgation. Therefore, the burden for conducting initial performance tests is reflected in this ICR.

Affected sources must conduct performance tests on all stacks from indurating furnaces no less than twice during a 3 permit term to demonstrate continuous compliance. Affected sources must conduct performance tests on ore crushing and handling operations and finished pellet handling operations at a frequency determined by the permitting authority. Since subsequent performance testing would be conducted beyond the 3

year period covered by this ICR, the burden for subsequent performance testing is not included in this ICR.

Sources must monitor operating parameters for control devices using continuous parameter monitoring systems ( CPMS), bag leak detectors, or continuous opacity monitoring systems ( COMS).

Facilities that use CPMS or baghouse leak detectors must submit a site specific monitoring plan. Facilities may submit a petition for approval to monitor alternative operating parameters.

Inspection and maintenance requirements are specified for each type of monitoring system.

Consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions, all respondents are required to prepare and operate by an operation and maintenance plan and a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Each source must also prepare and operate by a fugitive dust emissions control plan. Sources must submit a testing plan if they intend to conduct initial performance testing on representative emission units or if they do not have a title V permit. Respondents must submit a one time initial notification report as required by the NESHAP General Provisions.

The following reports are required by the final rule but are 4 not included in the burden for this ICR because their due dates are beyond the period covered by this ICR. Semiannual compliance reports are required and must explain any deviations that occurred during the reporting period. An immediate report is required if actions taken in response to the startup, shutdown,

or malfunction are not consistent with the written startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan. A report must be submitted after the third consecutive unsuccessful attempt at corrective action for operating parameters. A notification must be submitted to request approval to conduct a new performance test to revise an operating limit. A notification of compliance status is due following the initial compliance demonstration.

Respondents must maintain records of specific information to ensure that the emission limitations and requirements are being achieved and maintained. These requirements are listed in Attachment 1.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection.

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is charged under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish NESHAP for new or existing major sources or area sources that reflect:

... the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of [ HAPs] that is achievable taking into consideration the cost of achieving the 5 emission reduction, any nonair quality health and environmental reduction, and energy requirements. [ section 112( d)( 2)]

This level of control is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT). Certain records and reports are necessary for the Administrator to: ( 1) confirm the compliance status of major sources, identify any non major sources not subject to the standards, and identify new or reconstructed sources subject to the standards; and ( 2) ensure that the MACT standards are being achieved. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the Act ( 42 U. S. C. 7414) and set out in the NESHAP General Provisions.

( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data.

The information will be used by Agency enforcement personnel to: ( 1) identify major sources and new or reconstructed sources subject to the standards, ( 2) ensure that MACT is being properly applied, and ( 3) ensure that the emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained on a continuous basis.

Based on the reported information, EPA can decide which sources,

records, or processes should be inspected.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria ( a) Nonduplication.

A computer search of the Federal Information Locator System indicated that there are no similar information requests being 6 carried out by the Federal government. A similar search of EPA's ongoing ICR's revealed no duplication of information gathering efforts. Certain reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information required by the final rule. In such cases,

a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be provided to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by this final rule.

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

This section is not applicable because this is a rulerelated ICR.

( c) Consultations.

This final rule was developed in consultation with State and local agencies, EPA regional office experts, and individual taconite iron ore processing plants.

( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

If the relevant information were collected less frequently,

EPA would not be reasonably assured that a source is in compliance with the standards.

( e) General Guidelines.

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

( f) Confidentiality.

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

1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23,

1979). 7 ( g) Sensitive Questions.

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

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested ( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes.

A total of 8 taconite iron ore processing facilities in 2 states exist. We believe all of these facilities are major sources that would be subject to the rule requirements. The SIC code for the respondents is 1011; the NAIC code is 21221.

( b) Information Requested.

( i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements.

Attachment 1, Source Data and Information Requirements,

summarizes the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

( ii) Respondent Activities. The respondent activities required by the rule are identified in Tables 1 through 3 and introduced in section 6( a).

5. The Information Collected   Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management ( a) Agency Activities.

A list of Agency activities is provided in Tables 4 through 6 and introduced in section 6( c).

( b) Collection Methodology and Management.

This is not relevant to this information collection request.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility.

A small entity for this industry is defined as a firm having no more than 500 employees. None of the 8 taconite iron ore processing facilities are small entities. The final rule provides a maximum degree of operational flexibility and the ICR requirements are the minimum necessary to demonstrate compliance.

Affected sources have 3 years from the promulgation date to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits.

( d) Collection Schedule.

Information contained in the one time only reports will be 8 entered into the Compliance Data System operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Data obtained during periodic visits by Agency personnel from records maintained by the respondents will be tabulated and published for internal EPA use in enforcement and compliance programs. A schedule for collection of information and publication of data is not applicable because reports are triggered by action of the respondents.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden.

The information burden estimates for reporting and recordkeeping for the first three years after promulgation are presented in Tables 1 through 3. These numbers were derived from estimates based on EPA's experience with other standards.

( b) Estimating Respondent Costs.

The information collection activities for the final rule are presented in Tables 1 through 3.

( i) Estimating Labor Costs. Labor rates and associated costs are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) data.

Technical, management, and clerical average hourly rates for civilian workers were taken from the 2002 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation ( http:// stats. bls. gov/ ncs/ home. htm). Wages for civilian workers ( white collar occupations) are used as the basis for the labor rates with a total compensation of $ 29.42/ hour for technical, $ 42.56/ hour for managerial, and $ 18.74/ hour for clerical. These rates represent salaries plus fringe benefits and do not include the cost of overhead. An overhead rate of 110 percent is used to account for these costs.

The fully burdened hourly wage rates used to represent respondent labor costs are: technical at $ 61.78, management at $ 89.38, and clerical at $ 39.35. 9 Table 1. Respondent Burden and Cost of Reporting For the First Year After the Promulgation Date Burden Item Personhours per occurrence ( A) Occurrences per Respondent ( B) Personhours per respondent ( C)=( AxB) Respondents ( D) Technical personhours ( E)=( CxD) Management person hours ( F)=( E x0.05) Clerical person hours ( G)=( E x0.1) Cost $ Yr 1 ( H) a 1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions 2 1 2 8 16 0.8 2 1,123 B. Required Activities  Perf. Testing  Facility Laborb, c 40 1 40 8 320 16.0 32 22,460  Perf. Testing  Contractor Costsb, c        333,000  SSM Plan 40 1 40 0

C. Create Information See 4B D. Gather Existing Information See 4B E. Write Report  Initial Notification 2 1 2 8 16 0.8 1.6 1,123  Compliance Extension Request 2 1 2 0

 Site specific Test Planb 40 1 40 2.7 107 5.3 10.7 7,487  Operation and Maintenance Plan 40 1 40 0

 Fugitive Dust Emis. Control Plan 20 1 20 0

 Site specific Monitoring Plan 80 1 80 0

 Petition for Alt. Monitoring Reqs. 40 1 40 2 80 4.0 8.0 5,615  Notification of Performance Test 4 3 12 8 96 4.8 9.6 6,738 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions See 3A B. Plan Activitiesb 3 1 3 2.7 8 0.4 0.8 561 C. Develop Record Systemb 16 1 16 2.7 43 2.1 4.3 2,995 D. Time to Enter Information

E. Time to Train Personnelb 3 1 3 2.7 8 0.4 1 561 F. Time to Transmit or Disclose Informationb 1 2 2 2.7 5 0.3 1 374 F. Time for Audits N/ A TOTAL BURDEN AND COST 699 34.9 70 382,037 a Costs are based on the following 2002 hourly rates: technical at $ 61.78, management at $ 89.38, and clerical at $ 39.35.

b Assumes that 1/ 3 of all sources will send in a test plan, conduct performance testing, and conduct recordkeeping procedures in each of the 3 years.

c Performance testing includes 40 hours per facility per year to set up testing contractor, oversee tests, and review test reports. Testing contractor costs are based on the following: ( 53 ind. furnace and ore dryer Method 5 PM tests @ $ 8,000/ test)+( 115 OCH and PH Method 5 PM tests @ $ 5,000/ test) = $ 999,000.

$ 999,000/ 3 years = $ 333,000/ year 10 Table 2. Respondent Burden and Cost of Reporting For the Second Year After the Promulgation Date Burden Item Personhours per occurrence ( A) Occurrences per Respondent ( B) Personhours per respondent ( C)=( AxB) Respondents ( D) Technical personhours ( E)=( CxD) Management person hours ( F)=( E x0.05) Clerical person hours ( G)=( E x0.1) Cost $ Yr 2 ( H) a 1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions 2 1 2 0

B. Required Activities  Perf. Testing  Facility Laborb, c 40 1 40 8 320 16.0 32 22,460  Perf. Testing  Contractor Costsb, c        333,000  SSM Plan 40 1 40 0

C. Create Information See 4B D. Gather Existing Information See 4B E. Write Report  Initial Notification 2 1 2 0

 Compliance Extension Request 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 421  Site specific Test Planb 40 1 40 2.7 107 5.3 10.7 7,487  Operation and Maintenance Plan 40 1 40 0

 Fugitive Dust Emis. Control Plan 20 1 20 0

 Site specific Monitoring Plan 80 1 80 0

 Petition for Alt. Monitoring Reqs. 40 1 40 0

 Notification of Performance Test 4 3 12 8 96 4.8 9.6 6,738 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions See 3A B. Plan Activitiesb 3 1 3 2.7 8 0.4 0.8 561 C. Develop Record Systemb 16 1 16 2.7 43 2.1 4.3 2,995 D. Time to Enter Information

E. Time to Train Personnelb 3 1 3 2.7 8 0.4 1 561 F. Time to Transmit or Disclose Informationb 1 2 2 2.7 5 0.3 1 374 F. Time for Audits N/ A TOTAL BURDEN AND COST 593 29.6 59 374,597 a Costs are based on the following 2002 hourly rates: technical at $ 61.78, management at $ 89.38, and clerical at $ 39.35.

b Assumes that 1/ 3 of all sources will send in a test plan, conduct performance testing, and conduct recordkeeping procedures in each of the 3 years.

c Performance testing includes 40 hours per facility per year to set up testing contractor, oversee tests, and review test reports. Testing contractor costs are based on the following: ( 53 ind. furnace and ore dryer Method 5 PM tests @ $ 8,000/ test)+( 115 OCH and PH Method 5 PM tests @ $ 5,000/ test) = $ 999,000.

$ 999,000/ 3 years = $ 333,000/ year 11 Table 3. Respondent Burden and Cost of Reporting For the Third Year After the Promulgation Date Burden Item Personhours per occurrence ( A) Occurrences per Respondent ( B) Personhours per respondent ( C)=( AxB) Respondents ( D) Technical personhours ( E)=( CxD) Management person hours ( F)=( E x0.05) Clerical person hours ( G)=( E x0.1) Cost $ Yr 3 ( H) a 1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions 2 1 2 0

B. Required Activities  Perf. Testing  Facility Laborb, c 40 1 40 8 320 16.0 32 22,460  Perf. Testing  Contractor Costsb, c        333,000  SSM Plan 40 1 40 8 320 16.0 32 22,460 C. Create Information See 4B D. Gather Existing Information See 4B E. Write Report  Initial Notification 2 1 2 0

 Compliance Extension Request 2 1 2 0

 Site specific Test Planb 40 1 40 2.7 107 5.3 10.7 7,487  Operation and Maintenance Plan 40 1 40 8 320 16.0 32 22,460  Fugitive Dust Emis. Control Plan 20 1 20 8 160 8.0 16.0 11,230  Site specific Monitoring Plan 80 1 80 8 640 32.0 64.0 44,919  Petition for Alt. Monitoring Reqs. 40 1 40 0

 Notification of Performance Test 4 3 12 8 96 4.8 9.6 6,738 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions See 3A B. Plan Activitiesb 3 1 3 2.7 8 0.4 0.8 561 C. Develop Record Systemb 16 1 16 2.7 43 2.1 4.3 2,995 D. Time to Enter Information

E. Time to Train Personnelb 3 1 3 2.7 8 0.4 1 561 F. Time to Transmit or Disclose Informationb 1 2 2 2.7 5 0.3 1 374 F. Time for Audits N/ A Total Labor BURDEN AND COST 2,027 101.3 203 475,244 a Costs are based on the following 2002 hourly rates: technical at $ 61.78, management at $ 89.38, and clerical at $ 39.35.

b Assumes that 1/ 3 of all sources will send in a test plan, conduct performance testing, and conduct recordkeeping procedures in each of the 3 years.

c Performance testing includes 40 hours per facility per year to set up testing contractor, oversee tests, and review test reports. Testing contractor costs are based on the following: ( 53 ind. furnace and ore dryer Method 5 PM tests @ $ 8,000/ test)+( 115 OCH and PH Method 5 PM tests @ $ 5,000/ test) = $ 999,000.

$ 999,000/ 3 years = $ 333,000/ year 12 ( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance ( O& M)

Costs. In order to record the information required by the rule,

sources must install monitoring devices. Each baghouse must monitor the pressure drop across each cell and have a bag leak detection system. Each dynamic wet scrubber must monitor the daily average scrubber water flow rate and either the daily average fan amperage or the daily average pressure drop. All other wet scrubbers must monitor the daily average pressure drop and daily average water flow. Each dry electrostatic precipitator must either have a COMS or monitor the daily average secondary voltage and the daily average secondary current. The burden for all dry electrostatic precipitators was based on the assumption that COMS will be used. The costs of each of these monitoring systems were estimated based on previous EPA rule making experience and vendor quotes. These costs were multiplied by the number of systems expected to be installed to determine the total capital cost of monitoring. The annualized capital cost for monitoring devices is $ 392,751. This is based on an equipment lifetime of 25 years, an interest rate of 7 percent, yielding a capital recovery factor of 0.086.

Operating and Maintenance costs were estimated on an annual basis for each monitoring device and multiplied by the estimated number of systems to be installed. The average annual operating and maintenance costs during the first 3 years is $ 117,345.

( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

Because the information collection requirements were developed as an incidental part of standards development, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection requirements. Because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents are required under the General Provisions for the MACT standards, no operational costs will be incurred by the Federal Government. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the Compliance 13 Data System, with the result that no Federal costs can be directly attributed to the ICR. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program, and, therefore, is not attributable to the ICR. The only costs that the Federal government will incur are user costs associated with the analysis of the reported information, as presented in Tables 4 through 6.

Labor rates and associated costs for the Agency are assumed to be the same as the respondent's hourly rates. The Agency labor rates are estimated as follows: technical at $ 61.78, management at $ 89.38, and clerical at $ 39.35. 14 Table 4. Burden and Cost for the Federal Government for the First Year After the Promulgation Date Activity EPA hours per occurrence ( A) Occurrences per Respondent ( B) Personhours per Respondent ( C) = ( AxB) Respondents ( D) Technical person hours ( E) = ( CxD) Management person hours ( F) = ( E x0.05) Clerical person hours ( G) = ( E x0.1) Cost $

Year 1 ( H) a 1. Initial Performance Testb, c 8 7 56 8 448 22.4 44.8 31,443 2. Repeat Performance Test N/ A

3. Litigation N/ A

4. Excess Emissions Enforcement Activities N/ A

5. Report Review A. Initial Notification 2 1 2 8 16 0.8 1.6 1,123 B. Notification Initial Performance Test 2 3 6 8 48 2.4 4.8 3,369 C. Fugitive Dust Emissions Control Plan 10 1 10 0

D. Performance Test Report N/ A

E. Compliance Extension Request 2 1 2 0

F. Site specific Test Planb 10 1 10 2.7 27 1.4 2.7 1,895 G. Operation and Maintenance Plan 10 1 10 0

H. Site specific Monitoring Plan 10 1 10 0

I. Petition for Alternative Monitoring Requirements 5 1 5 2 10 0.5 1.0 702 J. SSM Plan 10 1 10 0

TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) 549 27.5 54.9 38,532 Travel Expenses for Performance Testingb. c ( 1 person x 8 plant/ yr x 7 day/ plant x $ 100 per diem) 5,600 Total Annual Cost 44,132 a Costs are based on the following 2002 hourly rates: technical at $ 61.78, management at $ 89.38, and clerical at $ 39.35.

b Assumes that 1/ 3 of all sources will send in a test plan and conduct performance testing in each of the three years.

C 53 indurating furnace and ore dryer Method 5 PM tests + 115 OCH and PH Method 5 PM tests = 168 Method 5 PM tests.

168 tests/ 3 years = 56 Method 5 PM tests/ year. ( 56 Method 5 PM tests/ year)/( 8 plants) = 7 Method 5 PM tests per year per plant. 15 Table 5. Burden and Cost for the Federal Government for the Second Year After the Promulgation Date Activity EPA hours per occurrence ( A) Occurrences per Respondent ( B) Personhours per Respondent ( C) = ( AxB) Respondents ( D) Technical person hours ( E) = ( CxD) Management person hours ( F) = ( E x0.05) Clerical person hours ( G) = ( E x0.1) Cost $

Year 2 ( H) a 1. Initial Performance Testb, c 8 7 56 8 448 22.4 44.8 31,443 2. Repeat Performance Test N/ A

3. Litigation N/ A

4. Excess Emissions Enforcement Activities N/ A

5. Report Review A. Initial Notification 2 1 2 0

B. Notification Initial Performance Test 2 3 6 8 48 2.4 4.8 3,369 C. Fugitive Dust Emissions Control Plan 10 1 10 0

D. Performance Test Report N/ A

E. Compliance Extension Request 2 1 2 2 4 0.2 0.4 281 F. Site specific Test Planb 10 1 10 2.7 27 1.4 2.7 1,895 G. Operation and Maintenance Plan 10 1 10 0

H. Site specific Monitoring Plan 10 1 10 0

I. Petition for Alternative Monitoring Requirements 5 1 5 0

J. SSM Plan 10 1 10 0

TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) 527 26.4 52.7 36,988 Travel Expenses for Performance Testingb. c ( 1 person x 8 plant/ yr x 7 day/ plant x $ 100 per diem) 5,600 Total Annual Cost 42,588 a Costs are based on the following 2002 hourly rates: technical at $ 61.78, management at $ 89.38, and clerical at $ 39.35.

b Assumes that 1/ 3 of all sources will send in a test plan and conduct performance testing in each of the three years.

C 53 indurating furnace and ore dryer Method 5 PM tests + 115 OCH and PH Method 5 PM tests = 168 Method 5 PM tests.

168 tests/ 3 years = 56 Method 5 PM tests/ year. ( 56 Method 5 PM tests/ year)/( 8 plants) = 7 Method 5 PM tests per year per plant. 16 Table 6. Burden and Cost for the Federal Government for the Third Year After the Promulgation Date Activity EPA hours per occurrence ( A) Occurrences per Respondent ( B) Personhours per Respondent ( C) = ( AxB) Respondents ( D) Technical person hours ( E) = ( CxD) Management person hours ( F) = ( E x0.05) Clerical person hours ( G) = ( E x0.1) Cost $

Year 3 ( H) a 1. Initial Performance Testb, c 8 7 56 8 448 22.4 44.8 31,443 2. Repeat Performance Test N/ A

3. Litigation N/ A

4. Excess Emissions Enforcement Activities N/ A

5. Report Review A. Initial Notification 2 1 2 0

B. Notification Initial Performance Test 2 3 6 8 48 2.4 4.8 3,369 C. Fugitive Dust Emissions Control Plan 10 1 10 8 80 4.0 8.0 5,615 D. Performance Test Report N/ A

E. Compliance Extension Request 2 1 2 0

F. Site specific Test Planb 10 1 10 2.7 27 1.4 2.7 1,895 G. Operation and Maintenance Plan 10 1 10 8 80 4.0 8.0 5,615 H. Site specific Monitoring Plan 10 1 10 8 80 4.0 8.0 5,615 I. Petition for Alternative Monitoring Requirements 5 1 5 0

J. SSM Plan 10 1 10 8 80 4.0 8.0 5,615 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) 843 42.2 84.3 59,167 Travel Expenses for Performance Testingb. c ( 1 person x 8 plant/ yr x 7 day/ plant x $ 100 per diem) 5,600 Total Annual Cost 64,767 a Costs are based on the following 2002 hourly rates: technical at $ 61.78, management at $ 89.38, and clerical at $ 39.35.

b Assumes that 1/ 3 of all sources will send in a test plan and conduct performance testing in each of the three years.

C 53 indurating furnace and ore dryer Method 5 PM tests + 115 OCH and PH Method 5 PM tests = 168 Method 5 PM tests.

168 tests/ 3 years = 56 Method 5 PM tests/ year. ( 56 Method 5 PM tests/ year)/( 8 plants) = 7 Method 5 PM tests per year per plant. 17 ( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs.

The EPA estimates that all 8 facilities will install the required monitoring equipment, conduct initial performance tests,

conduct recordkeeping activities and prepare and submit the following reports/ notifications during the 3 year period for this ICR: a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; a fugitive dust emissions control plan; a testing plan; an operations and maintenance plan; a site specific monitoring plan; performance test notifications; and the initial notification. The EPA estimates that a portion of the facilities will prepare and submit a compliance extension request and a petition for alternative monitoring requirements. Details on the number of respondents affected by each individual burden item are provided in the tables. The total labor burden for the first 3 years,

provided in Table 7, is 3,816 hours with an estimated cost of $ 1,231,878 including technical, management and clerical hours.

Annual average labor cost is 1,272 hours with an estimated annual cost of $ 410,626. Adding three years of annualized capital costs and O& M costs yields a total respondent burden for recordkeeping and reporting for the first 3 years of $ 920,722. 18 Table 7. Summary of Respondent Burden and Cost of Reporting Year Respondents Technical personhours Management personhours Clerical personhours Total Hours Total Cost $ a First Year 8 699 35 70 803 382,037 Second Year 8 593 30 59 682 374,597 Third Year 8 2,027 101 203 2,331 475,244 Three Year Labor Total 3,318 166 332 3,816 1,231,878 Annual Average Labor Cost 1,106 55 111 1,272 410,626 Annual Average Capital Cost 392,751 Annual Average O& M Cost 117,345 TOTAL ANNUAL AVERAGE COST 920,722 a Costs are based on the following 2002 hourly rates: technical at $ 61.78, management at $ 89.38, and clerical at $ 39.35.

b Capital costs are based on an estimated 209 scrubbers, 52 baghouses and 28 ESPs. The total capital cost is estimated to be $ 4,576,955. Assuming a lifetime of 25 years and 7% interest ( i. e., a capital recovery factor of 0.086) yields the annualized capital cost.

c O& M costs are based on 209 scrubbers, 52 baghouses and 28 ESPs.

( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables.

( i) Respondent tally. The bottom line respondent burden hours and costs, presented in Table 7, are calculated by adding person hours per year down each column for technical, managerial,

and clerical staff, and by adding down the cost column. The total annual respondent recordkeeping and reporting labor burden,

provided in Table 7, is 1,272 hours with an estimated cost of $ 410,626 per year including technical, management, and clerical hours. The annualized capital cost for monitoring devices is $ 392,751. Operation and Maintenance cost ( excluding any labor hours given in the labor burden estimate) are estimated at 19 $ 117,345 per year average over the 3 year ICR period. The total annual average burden is $ 920,722.

( ii) The Agency tally. The bottom line Agency burden hours and costs, presented in Table 8, are calculated as in the respondent table, by adding person hours per year down each column for technical, managerial, and clerical staff, and by adding down the cost column. In this case, total cost is the sum of this total salary cost and total travel expenses for tests attended. The total annual average hours are 736 hours. The total annual cost is $ 50,496.

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

( f) Reasons for Change in Burden.

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

Table 8. Summary of Annual Burden and cost for the Federal Government Year Respondents Technical personhours Management personhours Clerical personhours Total Hours Total Cost $ a First Year 8 549 27 55 631 44,132 Second Year 8 527 26 53 606 42,588 Third Year 8 843 42 84 969 64,767 Three Year Total 1,919 96 192 2,207 151,487 ANNUAL AVERAGE 640 32 64 736 50,496 a Labor costs are based on the following 2002 hourly rates: technical at $ 61.78, management at $ 89.38, and clerical at $ 39.35.

( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 159 hours 20 per response ( 1,272 hours/ 8 facilities). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information,

and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0039, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West,

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in 21 the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention:

Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No.

( OAR 2002 0039). 22 PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in data collection associated with this regulation. 23 ATTACHMENT 1 SOURCE DATA AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Requirement Regulation citation 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions citation Record retention1 PERFORMANCE TESTING Initial performance test 63.9620( a)

through ( g) N/ A N/ A Subsequent performance tests 63.9630 N/ A N/ A NOTIFICATIONS Notifications ( initial,

special compliance requirements,

performance testing,

CMS, and compliance status) and requests ( alternative monitoring methods and extension of compliance) 63.9640,

63.9590( c) 63.7( b) and ( c),

63.8( f)( 4),

63.9( b)

( h), 63.90 5 years Initial notification due date  existing sources 63.9640( b) 63.9( b)( 2) 5 years Initial notification due date  new sources 63.9640( c) 63.9( b)( 3) 5 years Notification of intent to conduct a performance test due date 63.9640( d) 63.7( b)( 1) 5 years Requirement Regulation citation 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions citation Record retention1 24 Initial notification of compliance status due date 63.9640( e) 63.9( h)( 2)

( ii) 5 years Notification of request to conduct a performance test to revise the operating limit 63.9622( f) N/ A 5 years PLANS AND REPORTS Semiannual compliance report due date 63.9641( a) 63.8( c)( 7)

( 8), 63.10 ( d)( 5)( i) 5 years Semiannual compliance report contents 63.9641( b) 63.8( c)( 7)

( 8), 63.10 ( d)( 5)( i) 5 years Immediate startup,

shutdown, and malfunction report2 63.9641( c) 63.10( d)( 5)

( ii) 5 years Part 70 monitoring report 63.9641( d) N/ A Life of affected source Fugitive dust emissions control plan 63.9591 N/ A Life of affected source Operation and maintenance plan 63.9600( b) N/ A Life of affected source Requirement Regulation citation 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions citation Record retention1 25 Testing Plan for testing representative units 63.9620( e)

and ( g) N/ A Life of affected source Testing Plan for plants without a Title V permit 63.9630( a)

through ( e) N/ A Life of affected source Site specific monitoring plan for controls not listed 63.9631( f) N/ A Life of affected source Site specific monitoring plan for CPMS 63.9632( b) N/ A Life of affected source Site specific monitoring plan for baghouses 63.9632( a)( 4) N/ A Life of affected source Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 63.9610( c) 63.6( e)( 3) Life of affected source RECORDKEEPING Notifications and reports 63.9642( a)( 1) 63.10( b)( 2)

( xiv) 5 years Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan/ events 63.9642( a)( 2) 63.6( e)( 3)

( iii)( v) 5 years Performance tests 63.9642( a)( 3) 63.10( b)( 2)

( viii) 5 years Requirement Regulation citation 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions citation Record retention1 26 Records for COMS 63.9642( b) 63.6( h)( 7)

( i) and ( ii),

63.8( d)( 3),

63.10( b)( 2)

( vi) 5 years Records required to demonstrate continuous compliance 63.9642( c) 63.10( b)( 2)

( vii) 5 years N/ A  Not applicable 1 All records must be retained for at least 5 years. The records for the most recent 2 years must be retained onsite but records for the remaining 3 years may be kept offsite but available for review.

2 Includes reports of startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions where procedures in startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan were not followed.