STANDARD FORM 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR NO. 2072.02 NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS ( NESHAP) FOR LIME MANUFACTURING ( 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART WWWW)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 June 2003 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Identification of the Information Collection ( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection. NESHAP for Lime Manufacturing ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW), ICR No. 2072.02. ( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract. Potential respondents are owners or operators of new or existing lime manufacturing plants. The final rule applies to lime manufacturing plants that are major sources of hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions; but the final rule does not apply to lime plants at pulp and paper mills or beet sugar factories. Emission limitations for particulate matter ( PM) are promulgated for kilns ( including coolers if applicable) along with operating limits for control devices. Emissions from material processing operations associated with transferring limestone from feed stockpiles to kilns are subject to PM and/ or opacity ( or no visible emissions ( VE)) limits. Plants are required to conduct performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with each emission and opacity limit and establish operating limits for control devices. The final rule also requires all plants to prepare an operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan for affected sources and control devices in addition to a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. All plants must demonstrate initial compliance by 3 years after promulgation except that under Section 112( i), plants may request an additional year if needed to install controls. To demonstrate continuous compliance, plants must conduct repeat performance tests ( every 5 years), monitor operating parameters for control devices, and perform annual inspections of emission capture, collection, and transport systems. Brief monthly VE tests are required for certain material processing operations with semiannual or annual tests if no VE are observed. If VE are observed, a 6 minute opacity test is required to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit and monthly VE tests resume. Respondents must submit one time notifications as required by the NESHAP General Provisions and semiannual compliance reports explaining any deviation. An immediate report is required if actions taken in response to the startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not consistent with the written startup, 2 shutdown, and malfunction plan. 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 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 plants,

records, or processes should be inspected.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria ( a) Nonduplication. The information required by the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP is not duplicated by existing EPA 3 regulations and is not expected to be required by any other EPA rulemaking currently in progress.

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

a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency may be provided to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the standards. The EPA has issued guidance to State and local agencies encouraging them to consolidate duplicative requirements into a single element to be reported.

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

This section is not applicable since public notice was given as part of the proposal process for the mercury cell chlor alkali NESHAP.

( c) Consultations.

This final rule was developed with participation from the National Lime Association, individual lime manufacturing companies, control equipment vendors, Federal agencies, and State and local air pollution control agencies. This final rule also takes into consideration the findings of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel ( SBAR Panel) convened under the authority of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA).

Key non EPA persons consulted prior to proposal of the standards are identified in Table 1.

TABLE 1. PERSONS CONSULTED ON INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES Contact Organization Telephone Number Arline Seeger National Lime Association 703 243 5463 Jonathon Pawlow Small Business Administration 202 205 6951 David Ousley State of Alabama 334 271 7861 Bryon Allen Office of Management and Budget 202 395 3087 4 ( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

If the relevant information were collected less frequently,

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

( e) General Guidelines.

None of the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5 of the OMB regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act 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).

( 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.

Of the 110 lime manufacturing plants currently in operation,

we estimate that 30 of the plants are associated with beet sugar production and are not be subject to the requirements of the final rule. Of the 80 remaining plants, 70 percent ( 56 plants)

are believed to be major sources of HAP emissions and are subject to the requirements of the final rule. No new plants are expected over the 3 year clearance period for this ICR although 6 new kilns are projected. The NAICS codes for the respondents are 32741) for commercial plants, 33111 for captive plants at iron and steel mills, and 3314 for captive plants at nonferrous metal production facilities. Respondents also include non clay ( dead burned dolomite) refractory plants classified under 327125.

( b) Information Requested. 5 ( 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 Table 2 and introduced in section 6( a).

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

A list of Agency activities is provided in Table 3 and introduced in section 6( c).

( b) Collection Methodology and Management.

Information contained in the reports will be entered into EPA's Aerometric Information and Retrieval System ( AIRS) which is operated and maintained by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. AIRS contains emissions, compliance, and enforcement data on stationary sources. Data obtained from records maintained by the respondent during periodic visits by Agency personnel will be tabulated and published for internal EPA use in enforcement and compliance programs.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility.

In the lime manufacturing industry, a small entity is defined as a lime manufacturing company having no more than 500 employees. Of the 39 companies that have plants that are subject to the rule, EPA identified 12 entities that are small businesses. Because of the potential impacts on small businesses, a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel ( SBAR Panel)

was convened under the authority of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA). The SBAR Panel considers the concerns of small entitiy representatives and issues findings and recommendations relative to the proposed rule under development.

EPA has carefully considered the findings and recommendations of 6 the SBAR Panel and has developed a final rule that is appropriate for all companies, including small entities.

The final rule will reduce HAP emissions while keeping the associated recordkeeping and reporting burden to a minimum. For example, existing affected plants have 3 years to demonstrate compliance and the Administrator or permitting authority may grant one additional year if more time is needed to install controls. Lime manufacturing facilities at beet sugar plants or those that produce hydrated lime only are not covered. The promulgated emission limits are based on the MACT floor rather than on more costly options that are beyond the MACT floor. The final rule provides flexibility to affected sources, including small entities, in choosing how they will meet the PM emission limits. Compliance demonstrations for material processing operations are based on monthly, rather than daily, monitoring which will reduce the recordkeeping burden. Furthermore, the minimum performance testing frequency ( every 5 years) is being promulgated. Because the rule does not apply to area sources,

many small lime manufacturing plants will not be subject to the rule.

The final rule provides a maximum degree of operational flexibility and the ICR requirements are the minimum necessary to demonstrate compliance.

( d) Collection Schedule.

The compliance date of the standard is 3 years after promulgation of the rule. Compliance reports are required semiannually beginning with the compliance date of the rule.

Existing affected sources must submit their initial notification no later than 120 days after the effective date of the standard.

Affected sources must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 days before the test is scheduled to begin. Additional notifications are triggered by actions of the respondents.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 7 ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden.

The information burden estimates for reporting and recordkeeping are presented in Table 2. These numbers were derived from estimates based on EPA's knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program and with previously approved ICR.

( b) Estimating Respondent Costs.

The information collection activities for the final rule are presented in Table 2. Because much of the data are already collected by respondents or required by existing law, minimal respondent development costs are associated with the information collection activities for the final rule.

( 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 2000 Employment Cost Trends ( http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t02. htm). Wages for civilian workers ( white collar occupations) are used as the basis for the labor rates with a total compensation of $ 26.15/ hour for technical, $ 37.19/ hour for managerial, and $ 17.22/ 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 $ 54.92, management at $ 78.10, and clerical at $ 36.16.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance ( O& M)

Costs. It is assumed that for each kiln control device, a bag leak detector will be installed. The one time capital cost for a bag leak detector is estimated to be $ 10,000, with a total annual cost of $ 3,300/ yr. Estimated annual O& M cost for all bag leak detectors averaged over the 3 year ICR period is $ 206,333. As shown in Table 2, the total annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be $ 377,933 per year. 8 ( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. O& M Costs. The annual O& M cost averaged over the 3 year period of this ICR is an estimated $ 206,333. The estimate of capital/ startup costs versus O& M costs is shown in Table 2.

( iv) Annualizing Capital Costs. For 52 kilns/ yr over the 3 year ICR period, the annualized capital cost for bag leak detectors will be $ 171,600 per year.

( 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 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 Table 3. 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 $ 54.92, management at $ 78.10, and clerical at $ 36.16.

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

The EPA estimates that 56 facilities will install the required monitoring equipment; conduct initial performance tests;

prepare operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans and startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plans; provide the one time 9 notifications; and keep required records during the 3 year clearance period for this ICR. Details on the number of respondents and process units affected by each individual burden item are provided in the footnotes of Table 2. The total burden,

provided in Table 2, is 7,766 hours; the estimated cost associated with this burden is $ 621,673 per year including technical, management, and clerical hours. The total cost given in Table 2, including the cost of labor, capital, operation, and maintenance, is $ 1.0 million per year.

( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables.

( i) Respondent tally. The bottom line respondent burden hours and costs, presented in Table 2, 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 hours are 7,766 hours. The annualized cost of capital for monitoring devices is $ 171,600 averaged over the first 3 years of the ICR. Monitoring device operation and maintenance costs ( excluding any labor hours given in the labor burden estimate) are estimated at $ 206,333 per year over the 3

year ICR period.

( ii) The Agency tally. The bottom line Agency burden hours and costs, presented in Table 3, 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 hours are 159. The total annual cost is $ 7,169.

( 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.

( g) Burden Statement 10 The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 415 hours per facility. 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 0052 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 11 submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention:

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

2002 0052 in any correspondence.

PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in data collection associated with this regulation. 12 TABLE 2. ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROMULGATED STANDARD Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( H) Cost,$ a 1. Applications N/ A 0 0 0 0 $ 0 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 0 0 0 0 $ 0 3. Acquisition, Installation, and Utilization of Technology and Systems 40 1 40 18.7b 748 $ 46,706 4. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions 2 1 2 18.7b 37 $ 2,335 B. Required activities Method 5 performance test for kilns 52c $ 130,000 Method 5 performance test for material handlingd 18.7d $ 70,000 Repeat PM performance testse N/ A 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Monthly/ semiannual, or annual VE tests for material handlinge N/ A 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Annual inspection of capture,

collection, and transport systemse 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Inspection and maintenance of affected sources, control devices, and monitoring systems according to operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plane N/ A 0 0 0 0 $ 0 C. Create information See 4B D. Gather existing information See 4B TABLE 2. ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROMULGATED STANDARD ( continued)

Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( H) Cost,$ a 13 E. Write report Notification of applicability 2 1 2 18.7f 37 $ 2,335 Notification of constr./ reconstr. 2 1 2 2g 4 $ 250 Notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 2g 4 $ 250 Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 2g 4 $ 250 Notification of special compliance requirements N/ A 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Compliance extension request 2 1 2 18.7b 37 $ 2,335 Notification of performance tests 2 1 2 54g 108 $ 6,744 Notification of opacity/ VE observations 2 1 2 2 d 4 $ 250 Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan 40 1 40 18.7b 748 $ 46,706 Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 40 1 40 18.7b 748 $ 46,706 Site specific test plan 40 1 40 18.7b 748 $ 46,706 Notification of compliance status 8 1 8 18.7b 150 $ 9,341 NESHAP waiver application N/ A 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Semiannual compliance reportse N/ A 0 0 0 0 $ 0 TABLE 2. ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROMULGATED STANDARD ( continued)

Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( H) Cost,$ a 14 Emergency startup, shutdown, or malfunction reportse N/ A 0 0 0 $ 0 5. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read instructions See 4A B. Plan activities 3 1 3 18.7b 56.1 $ 3,503 C. Implement activities 12 1 12 18.7b 224.4 $ 14,012 D. Develop record system 3 1 3 18.7b 56.1 $ 3,503 E. Time to enter information Records of all info. required by standards 3 52 h 156 18.7b 2,917 $ 182,153 F. Time to train personnel 3 1 3 18.7b 56.1 $ 3,503 G. Time to adjust existing ways to comply with previously applicable requirements 3 1 3 18.7b 56.1 $ 3,503 H. Time to transmit or disclose information 0.25i 2 0.5 18.7b 9.4 $ 584 I. Time for audits N/ A 0 0 0 0 $ 0 TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST Total Technical hrs Management hrs Clerical hrs Total hrs 6,753.2 337.7 675.3 7,766.1 $ 621,673 Annualized cost of capitalj $ 171,600 Operation and maintenance ( O& M) $ 206,333 Total ( capital recovery plus O& M) $ 377,933 TABLE 2. ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROMULGATED STANDARD ( continued)

15 Footnotes to Table 2 a Costs are based on the following hourly labor rates: technical at $ 54.92, management at $ 78.10, and clerical at $ 36.16.

b One time event for 56 respondents over 3 year term of ICR is 56/ 3 = 18.7 respondents/ yr.

c Method 5 performance tests are required for 150 existing kilns. A total of 6 new kilns are expected over the 3 year term of the ICR. One time test for 156 kilns over 3 year term of ICR = 52 tests/ yr. The annualized cost for a Method 5 performance test is $ 2,500.

d Assume that 56 plants have material handling operations and would incur a one time cost of $ 15,000 ($ 3,750 annualized) to perform Method 5 performance tests. Costs are based on two PM tests/ plant for MHO's. The total one time cost for the first PM test is $ 10,000 and a $ 5,000 onetime cost for each additional test. The annualized costs is calculated as follows: 1* 2500 + ( 1* 1250) = $ 3,750 per plant. For the 56 respondents over the 3 yr ICR term, the cost is: 56/ 3($ 3,750) = $ 70,000.

e This activity will not occur during the 3 year clearance period of this ICR.

f One time event for 56 existing respondents over 3 year term of ICR is 56/ 3 = 18.7 respondents/ yr. No new plants are expected.

g One time notification for 50 PM tests/ yr of existing kilns, 2 PM tests/ yr at plants with existing material handling operations and PM tests for 2 new kilns/ yr over the 3 year period of ICR. Total notifications over 3 year term of ICR is 50 + 2 + 2 = 54/ yr h Assumes 3 hours per week per plant to enter into records.

i Assumes 15 minutes to transmit recorded information.

J Cost includes 156 bag leak detection systems for new and existing lime kilns. 16 16 TABLE 3. ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST TO THE FEDERAL/ STATE GOVERNMENT OF THE PROMULGATED STANDARD Activity ( A)

Hours per occurrence ( B)

Hours per plant per year ( C) Plants per year ( D) Technical person hours per year ( D= BxC) ( E) Management person hours per year ( Dx0.05) ( F) Clerical person hours per year ( Dx0.1) ( G)

Cost, $ a Initial performance tests 40 40 1b 40 2.0 4.0 $ 2,498 Repeat performance test Retesting preparation 2 2 0.0c 0 0.0 0.0 $ 0 Repeat performance Retesting 40 40 0.0c 0 0 0 $ 0 Litigation 2080 2080 0.0d 0 0 0 $ 0 Excess Emissions Enforcement Activities 120 120 0.0d 0 0 0 $ 0 Report Review Notification of applicability 1 1 18.7e 19 1 2 Notification of constr./ reconstr. 1 1 2f 2 0 0 Notification of anticipated startup 1 1 2f 2 0 0 Notification of actual startup 1 1 2f 2 0 0 Notification of special compliance requirements N/ A 0 0 0 0 0 Notification of initial performance tests 1 2 18.7e 37 1.9 3.7 $ 2,336 Notification of compliance status 4 2 18.7e 37 1.9 3.7 $ 2,335 Review of repeat performance test report N/ A 0 0.0c 0 0.0 0.0 $ 0 Review of semi annual compliance report N/ A 0 0.0f 0 0.0 0.0 $ 0 Review of NESHAP waiver application N/ A 0 0.0g 0 0 0 $ 0 Review of emergency startup, shutdown, and malfunction report N/ A 0 0.0 f 0 0 0 $ 0 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) 139 7 13 $ 7,169 Travel Expenses for Tests Attendedh ( 1 person x 1 plant/ yr x 1 day/ plant x $ 100 per diem) + ($ 400/ round trip x 1 round trips/ yr) = $ 500 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 7,418 + $ 500 = $ 7,918 17 Footnotes to Table 3 a Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 54.92, management at $ 78.10, and clerical at $ 36.16.

b Assumes EPA/ State personnel will attend 3 performance tests over 3 years ( 3/ 3 = 1).

c Assumes no plants have to repeat their performance test over the 3 year term of the ICR.

d Assumes no plants will be involved in litigation or excess emissions enforcement activities over the 3 year term of the ICR.

e For 56 plants over 3 year term of the ICR ( 56/ 3 = 18.7).

f Assumes no plants will submit semi annual reports or emergency startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports during the 3 year clearance period of this ICR.

g Assumes no plants ask for waivers or have an emergency report. 18 ATTACHMENT 1 SOURCE DATA AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Requirement Regulation citation General Provisions citation Record retention1 NOTIFICATIONS Applicability 63.7130( a) 63.9( b) 5 years Anticipated startup 63.130( a) 63.9( b)( 4) 5 years Commencement of construction 63.7130( a) 63.9( b)( 4) 5 years Actual startup 63.7130( a) 63.9( b)( 4) 5 years Intention to construct/ reconstruct 63.7130( a) 63.9( b)( 4)( 5) 5 years Compliance dates/ extension 63.7130( a) 63.9( c) 5 years Performance test/ opacity observations 63.7130( a) 63.9( e) 5 years Compliance status 63.7130( a) 63.9( g) 5 years PLANS AND REPORTS Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan 63.7100( d) N/ A 5 years Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 63.7100( e) 63.6( e)( 3) 5 years Semiannual compliance report 63.7131( b) 63.10( d)( 2) 5 years Emergency startup, shutdown, malfunction reports2 63.7131( b) 63.6( e)( 3), 63.10( d)( 5) 5 years RECORDKEEPING Notifications and reports 63.7132( a)( 1) 63.10( b)( 2)( xiv) 5 years Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan/ events 63.7132( a)( 2) 63.6( e)( 3)( iii)( v) 5 years Performance tests and opacity observations 63.7132( a)( 3) 63.10( b)( 2)( viii) 5 years Records required to demonstrate continuous compliance 63.7132( c) 63.10( b)( 2)( vii) 5 years Visual observations 63.7132( b) 63.6( h)( 6) 5 years 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.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52601-52602]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18711]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0751; FRL-10012-61]

Pesticide Registration Review; Interim Decisions for Several
Pesticides; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's interim
registration review decisions for the following chemicals: 2,4-DP-p,
Aliphatic alcohols C6-C16, Alkylbenzene Sulfonates (ABS), Bacillus
pumilus, Bromacil, Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS), Fatty Acid Monoesters
with Glycerol or Propanediol, Harpin Proteins, Linuron, Pyroxsulam,
Thiencarbazone-methyl (TCM).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the pesticide specific contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information, contact: The
Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the
Table in Unit IV.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-7106; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed interim decisions for all pesticides listed in
the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown
in the following table. The interim registration review decisions are
supported by rationales included in the docket established for each
chemical.

                            Table--Registration Review Interim Decisions Being Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical review manager and
Registration review case name and No.                 Docket ID No.                     contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-DP-p Case Number 0294............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0726                        Ana Pinto<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Aliphatic alcohols, C6-C16, Case       EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0261                        Susanne Cerrelli,
 Number 4004<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Alkylbenzene Sulfonates (ABS), Case    EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0097                        Erin Dandridge,
 Number 4006<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Bacillus pumilus, Case Number 6015...  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0857                        Susanne Cerrelli,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Bromacil, Case Number 0041...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0445                        Ana Pinto<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS), Case        EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0488                        Rachel Eberius,
 Number 7454<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Fatty Acid Monoesters with Glycerol    EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0353                        Bibiana Oe,
 or Propanediol, Case Number 6016<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8162.
Harpin Proteins, Case Number 6010....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0641                        Michael Glikes,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Linuron, Case Number 0047............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0228                        Rachel Eberius,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Pyroxsulam, Case Number 7275.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0035                        Srijana Shrestha,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Thiencarbazone-methyl (TCM), Case      EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0481                        Matthew B. Khan,
 Number 7276<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                                347-8613.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed interim registration review decisions for the
chemicals in the table above were posted to the docket and the public
was invited to submit any comments or new information. EPA addressed
the comments or information received during the 60-day comment period
for the proposed interim decisions in the discussion for each pesticide
listed in the table. Comments from the 60-day comment period that were
received may

or may not have affected the Agency's interim decision. Pursuant to 40
CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for the chemicals
listed in the Table will remain open until all actions required in the
interim decision have been completed.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: July 28, 2020.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-18711 Filed 8-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P