[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24340-24343]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08987]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0330; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-051-AD;
Amendment 39-17427; AD 2013-08-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Kelowna Flightcraft R & D Ltd.
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Tracor (Convair) Model 340 and 440 airplanes and certain Military Model
C-131B, C-131D, C-131E, and C131F/R4Y-1 airplanes. This AD requires
repetitive inspections of the lower skin of the wings for cracking
around the inboard side of the wing station (WS) 6 and 7 access panel
doubler fingers and between stringers 5 and 11; repetitive inspections
of the lower skin of the wings for cracking around stringers 6, 8, and
10, and around the WS 6 and WS 7 access panel doubler fingers; and
repair if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report of a crack found
on the lower skin of the right-hand wing between WS 5 and WS 6. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the lower
skin of the wings, which could result in reduced structural integrity
of the wings.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 10, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 10, 2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by June 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Zimmer, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Emergency Airworthiness
Directive CF-2013-04, dated February 14, 2013 (referred to after this
as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    While performing a corrosion inspection of the wing internal
structures, an operator discovered a crack of significant length
between Wing Station (WS) 5 and 6, on the right hand wing lower skin
of a Convair 580 aeroplane. Although an investigation is still
ongoing to determine the cause, the crack appears to originate from
a fastener located at the wing skin to wing access door doubler
attachment.
    Previous repetitive external inspections of the wing lower skin
in accordance with Structurally Significant Detail (SSD) 57-1-4,
that was mandated by FAA AD 92-06-06, [Amendment 39-8186 (57 FR
9382, March 18, 1992)], did not detect the crack because the
location of the crack is covered by the nacelle drag angle.
    Cracking of the wing lower skin at a fatigue critical area, if
not detected, could compromise the structural integrity of the wing.
This [TCCA] AD mandates internal visual and eddy current inspections
to detect cracking of the wing lower skin to mitigate this unsafe
condition. Transport Canada may mandate additional corrective
actions [repair] pending the outcome of the failure investigation
and fleet findings.
The visual and eddy current inspections mandated by this [TCCA] AD
are considered as Alternative Means of Compliance (AMOC) to the SSD
57-1-4 inspection that was mandated by FAA AD 92-06-06, for the
locations addressed by the visual and eddy current inspections.

Corrective action includes repairing any cracking of the lower skin of
the wings. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in
the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Kelowna Flightcraft Ltd. has issued Service Bulletin 340-57-001,
dated February 12, 2013. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

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

Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI and Kelowna Flightcraft Service Bulletin 340-57-001, dated
February 12, 2013, specify that operators with a damage rate factor
(DRF) must divide 1,000 flight hours by their DRF to get the repetitive
inspection interval. However, there are no U.S.-registered airplanes
that have a DRF; therefore, this AD requires that the repetitive
inspections be done at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours.
    The MCAI and Kelowna Flightcraft Service Bulletin 340-57-001, dated
February 12, 2013, do not contain instructions to repair certain
cracking conditions; however, this AD requires repairing those
conditions using a method approved by either the Manager, New York
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or TCCA (or its delegated
agent).

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule based on the
manufacturer's engineering analysis of the structural failure condition
and flight hours/cycles on the affected fleet, which showed that
certain areas of the lower skin of the wings must be inspected for
fatigue cracking. Such fatigue cracking could result in reduced
structural integrity of the wings. Therefore, we determined that notice
and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0330;

Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-051-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 70 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $35,700, or $510 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2013-08-10 Kelowna Flightcraft R & D Ltd.: Amendment 39-17427.
Docket No. FAA-2013-0330; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-051-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 10,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Tracor (Convair) Model 340 and 440 airplanes,
including airplanes modified by Supplemental Type Certificates (STC)
SA1096WE http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/BAB5BE3241FF1FD085256CC10080DDDC?OpenDocument&Highlight=sa1096we
(commonly referred to as Model 640 airplanes), STC SA6088NM http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/BEFFE27E85EAFF9186257714007C8B4B?OpenDocument&Highlight=sa6088nm
(commonly referred to as Model 5800 airplanes), and STC SA4-1100
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/AFD81364EE6A3EAC85256CC2000C5CC2?OpenDocument&Highlight=sa4-1100
(commonly referred to as Model 580 airplanes) and Military Model C-
131B, C-131D, C-131E, and C131F/R4Y-1 airplanes; certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a crack found on the lower
skin of the right-hand (RH) wing between wing station (WS) 5 and 6.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the
lower skin of the wings, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the wings.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Detailed Inspections

    Within 20 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Do a
one-time detailed inspection for cracking of the lower skin of the
left-hand (LH) and RH wings around the inboard side of the WS 6 and
WS 7 access panel doubler fingers and between stringers 5 and 11, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Kelowna
Flightcraft Service Bulletin 340-57-001, dated February 12, 2013.
Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000
flight hours.

(h) Repetitive Eddy Current Inspections

    Within 100 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Do
an eddy current inspection for cracking of the lower skin of the LH
and RH wings for cracking around stringers 6, 8, and 10, and around
the WS 6 and WS 7 access panel doubler fingers, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Kelowna Flightcraft Service
Bulletin 340-57-001, dated February 12, 2013. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours.

(i) Repair

    If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using
a method approved by either the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(TCCA) (or its delegated agent).

(j) Method of Compliance

    The inspections required by this AD are approved as a method of
compliance to the structurally significant detail (SSD) 57-1-4
inspection required by AD 92-06-06, Amendment 39-8186 (57 FR 9382,
March 18, 1992), for only the locations addressed by the detailed
and eddy current inspections specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of
this AD. Inspections at all other locations addressed by SSD 57-1-4
remain applicable.

(k) Reporting

    Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of
each inspection required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to
Kelowna Flightcraft Convair Division, 5655 Airport Way, Kelowna,
Canada BC, V1V 1S1; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the

applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the ACO send it to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(m) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
Canadian Emergency Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-04, dated
February 14, 2013; and Kelowna Flightcraft Service Bulletin 340-57-
001, dated February 12, 2013; for related information.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Kelowna Flightcraft Service Bulletin 340-57-001, dated
February 12, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Kelowna Flightcraft Ltd., 5655 Airport Way, Kelowna, BC Canada, V1V
1S1; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.flightcraft.ca/convair.asp.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 8, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-08987 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 Ohio EPA Division of Air Pollution Control Engineering Guide # 65 Question:

For which types of emissions units should a monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting program be established to ensure continued compliance with applicable emission limitations and control requirements? In the absence of specific requirements which have been approved by the USEPA as part of the Ohio SIP, what would constitute reasonable and adequate programs for such emissions units? These questions are particularly relevant to a Title V permit applicant who must propose, within the " Applicable Requirements" section of the application, reasonable and adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

[ These questions and answers were created by the Engineering Section of the DAPC to assist State permit ( PTI and PTO) and Title V permit applicants, as well as District Office and local air agency staff who will be reviewing permit applications and drafting the necessary permits.]

Answer:

A well designed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting program will allow the permittee to obtain and document information for an emissions unit which can be used to ensure continued compliance with the applicable emission limitations and control requirements and ensure the proper operation and maintenance of any control equipment. In many cases, a permittee will want to establish some type of program for almost all of the significant emissions units at a facility. Although the DAPC believes this approach would be the most beneficial approach for the permittee, from a permitting and regulatory standpoint, the DAPC believes that it would be acceptable for the permittee to focus on emissions units which ( a) are required by State or federal law to 2 establish a specific type of program, ( b) generate, either individually or collectively ( for similar emissions units), substantial amounts of emissions on an uncontrolled basis, or ( c) have actual emission rates that are close to the allowable emission rates. These situations are described in more detail in the remainder of this Guide.

Throughout this Guide, " monitoring" refers to a device, equipment, or system used to measure, detect, or analyze an emission or operating parameter for an emissions unit or for an air pollution control device. The monitoring may be continuous or periodic and may be automated or manual. A monitoring system may be equipped with an automated means for recording the emission or parameter being measured, detected, or analyzed. Also, the monitoring system may be equipped with an alarm or other mechanism to notify personnel that the emission or parameter being measured, detected, or analyzed is above or below an acceptable level.

" Recordkeeping" refers to the maintenance of records by the permittee of information or data from a monitoring system, equipment maintenance plan, inspection, emission test, emission unit activity, etc. Recordkeeping can also include documentation concerning estimated emissions, material usage, and hours of operation for an emissions unit on a periodic basis ( e. g., annually, quarterly, monthly, daily, or hourly).

" Reporting" refers to the submission by the permittee of any information, notice, or report to the Ohio EPA or a designated local air agency. The reporting can be periodic ( e. g., annually, quarterly, or monthly) or triggered by the occurrence of a specific event such as a failure to meet a specified monitoring level, an equipment malfunction, or a violation of an emission limitation. The reporting may be written or verbal or both, depending upon the legal requirements.

Some emissions units are required by the following State or federal regulations to employ continuous emission monitors and meet specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements:

New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) 3

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP)

Appendix P of 40 CFR Part 51

40 CFR Part 266 ( for cement kilns, boilers and industrial furnaces that burn hazardous wastes)

40 CFR Part 503 ( for sewage sludge incinerators)

Title IV of the Clean Air Act ( for utility and industrial boilers subject to the acid rain provisions)

OAC Chapter 3745 75 ( for infectious waste incinerators)

OAC Chapter 3745 57 ( for hazardous waste incinerators)

The emissions unit categories subject to NSPS, NESHAP, and Appendix P requirements for continuous emission monitoring are summarized in Engineering Guide # 52, along with the pollutants required to be monitored for each category.

All of the above mentioned regulations establish mandatory continuous emission monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for the affected emissions units. Engineering Guide # 52 also describes several situations which may warrant the use of continuous emission monitors. The most important of those situations are described below.

1. The emissions unit has demonstrated marginal compliance with the allowable mass rate of emission. ( The DAPC considers marginal compliance to be greater than 80% of the allowable mass rate of emission.)

2. Method 9 readings are not feasible due to the nature of the operation of the emissions unit.

3. Very low visible emissions levels must be maintained for the emissions unit to ensure compliance with a very stringent allowable mass rate of emission. 4 4. The emissions unit has a history of periodic, possibly unexplained, violations of OAC rule 3745 17 07.

5. The use of a continuous emission monitoring system for a coating line or printing line, or a group of such lines, is more reasonable ( both technically and economically) than detailed, daily, line by line recordkeeping and reporting for the coatings or printing inks employed. ( This approach has been successfully used in situations where several emissions units are located within a permanent total enclosure and vented to a common control system.)

The decision to pursue continuous emission monitoring in these situations and the others described in Engineering Guide # 52 will normally be made by District Office or local air agency personnel, after appropriate discussions with Central Office personnel and company representatives.

Some emissions units also are required by State or federal regulations to employ continuous parametric monitors. Engineering Guide # 66 identifies the mandatory continuous parametric monitoring requirements for various types of emissions units.

The remaining portion of this Engineering Guide is intended to recommend appropriate terms and conditions for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting within PTIs, Title V permits and State PTOs for emissions units that are not subject to mandatory continuous emission or parametric monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Some of the terms and conditions in the STARS library are derived directly from federally enforceable requirements in the Ohio SIP, as identified by the rule citations in the tables that follow. However, some federally enforceable requirements do not contain corresponding monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. At Title V facilities where this is the case, applicants must propose an acceptable monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting program ( which may consist of recordkeeping only in appropriate circumstances) for each such applicable requirement. Any proposed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting program in a Title V permit 5 application should be accepted if it fulfills the requirements of OAC rule 3745 77 07( A)( 3) and is enforceable.

The following guiding principles should be used in drafting Title V permits:

1. No monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements should be placed in the federal/ State enforceable portion of a Title V permit unless they are required by existing federally enforceable requirements ( e. g., approved SIP rules that are applicable requirements, NSPS, MACT standards, etc.) or they are necessary to comply with the requirements of OAC rule 3745 77 07( A)( 3)( a)( ii).

2. Monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements cannot establish new performance standards or increase the stringency of an applicable requirement.

3. Any monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are not federally enforceable requirements should not be included in a permit unless they are necessary and reasonable. In general, an emissions unit that would meet the definition of " insignificant activities and emission levels" or that would qualify for registration status would not be subject to any monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in a permit.

4. Indicator monitoring shall not be used to determine direct compliance with mass emission limits unless expressly requested by the applicant and approved as an equivalent or alternative for determining compliance.

PTIs and State PTOs should similarly incorporate acceptable monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements within the terms and conditions, following the same guidelines set forth in ( 2) through ( 4) above. Any proposed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting program in a PTI or State PTO application should be accepted if it fulfills the requirements of State and federal law and is enforceable. 6 The types of emissions units for which monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are recommended, are described in the following tables by type of pollutant. For each type of emissions unit, the table recommends the elements ( monitoring, recordkeeping, and/ or reporting) that should be included in the program ( e. g., for some emissions units recordkeeping only may be sufficient, and for others, recordkeeping and reporting may be sufficient). If the existing federally enforceable requirement specifies a particular program element, then the rule citation appears under the " X" in the appropriate program element column( s) ( monitoring, recordkeeping, and/ or reporting). These terms and conditions should be included in the federal/ State enforceable portion of the permit. If no rule is cited in these columns and an acceptable program has not been proposed by the permittee, the recommended STARS library terms and conditions should be included in the permit, provided they are determined to be necessary and reasonable under the circumstances involved. The last column provides a cross reference to the STARS library of terms and conditions where the recommended wording for that program element is contained.

SO2:

EMISSIONS UNIT DESCRIPTION PROGRAM ELEMENTS STARS LIBRARY ( T& Cs) MONITORING RECORDKEEPING REPORTING 7 1. coal fired boiler, > 10 mmBtu/ hr and

100 mmBtu/ hr, without CEM for SO2 X X X ( I. 6)

2. coal fired boiler, > 100 mmBtu/ hr and < 1,000 mmBtu/ hr, without CEM for SO2 X X X X ( I. 4 or I. 5)

3. coal fired boiler,

 1,000 mmBtu/ hr, > 15,000 TPY, and without CEM for SO2 X X X X ( I. 3)

4. coal fired boiler,

 1,000 mmBtu/ hr, < 15,000 TPY, and without CEM for SO2 X X X X ( I. 4 or I. 5)

5. any coal fired boiler operated by the State of Ohio X X X X ( I. 8)

6. oil fired boiler, > 10 mmBtu/ hr and

100 mmBtu/ hr, without CEM for SO2 X X X ( I. 7)

7. any fuel burning equipment with operating rate restrictions X X X X ( I. 9)

8. sulfur recovery plant ( non NSPS) X ( CEM) X X none 9. coke oven battery ( H2S content of COG) X X X none 10. FCC unit and CO boiler X ( CEM) X X none PARTICULATES:

EMISSIONS UNIT DESCRIPTION PROGRAM ELEMENTS STARS LIBRARY ( T& Cs) 8 MONITORING RECORDKEEPING REPORTING 1. coal fired boiler, > 1 mmBtu/ hr and < 20 mmBtu/ hr, and subject to 17 10( C)( 7) X ( ash content) X X ( R. 1  R. 3)

2. coal fired boiler, uncontrolled or equipped solely with mechanical collectors X ( 17 07 ( A)( 1)( d) and ( f) for sootblowing and intermittent ash removal operations, respectively) none 3. fuel burning equipment which have been derated X X X X ( S. 3 & S. 4)

4. coke oven battery ( lids, charging, doors, offtake piping, and combustion stack) X X X X ( T. 2  T. 4)

5. BOF shop X X X X ( Z. 1, Z. 2, Z. 4 & Z. 5)

6. infectious waste incinerators,

1,000 lbs/ hr X X X X ( N. 4. a & N. 5)

7. infectious waste incinerators, > 1,000 lbs/ hr X X X X ( N. 4. b & N. 5)

8. roadways and parking areas X X X ( U. 5, U. 8, or U. 9; U. 11 & U. 13 if applicable 9 9. landfills used for the disposal of asbestoscontaining materials X X X ( O. 14 & O. 15)

10. controlled emissions units, with uncontrolled particulate emissions > 25 TPY X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X X X ( J. 32 J. 47, as applicable

11. asphaltic concrete batch plants X X X X ( P. 11 & P. 12; or P. 14 & P. 15; if applicable P. 19, P. 20, P. 21, & P. 23)

VOC:

EMISSIONS UNIT/ CATEGORY DESCRIPTION PROGRAM ELEMENTS STARS LIBRARY ( T& Cs) MONITORING RECORDKEEPING REPORTING 10 1. exempt metal furniture coating line, < 15 lbs/ day for all such lines [ 21 09( I)] X ( B)( 3)( b) X ( B)( 3)( c) X ( B. 1. a & B. 1. b)

2. exempt misc. metal parts coating line, < 15 lbs/ day for all such lines [ 21 09( U)( 2)( h)] X ( B)( 3)( b) X ( B)( 3)( c) X ( B. 2. a & B. 2. b)

3. exempt misc. metal parts coating line, < 8 or 10 gpd/ line [ 21 09( U)( 2)( e)] X ( B)( 3)( d) X ( B)( 3)( e) X ( B. 3. a & B. 3. b)

4. coating line or printing line that employs only complying coatings X ( B)( 3)( f) X ( B)( 3)( g) X ( B. 4. a & B. 4. b)

5. coating line or printing line that complies by means of a daily volumeweighted average VOC content X ( B)( 3)( h) X ( B)( 3)( i) X ( B. 5. a & B. 5. b)

6. coating line that employs control equipment and is subject to a lbs VOC/ gallon of solids limitation X ( B)( 3)( j) & ( n) X ( B)( 3)( j) X ( B)( 3)( k) & ( m) X ( B. 6. a & B. 6. b; B. 6. c & B. 6. d; B. 6. e & B. 6. f; or B. 6. g & B. 6. h) 11 7. coating line or printing line that employs control equipment and is subject to capture and control efficiency requirements or to an overall control efficiency requirement [ 21 09 ( B)( 6), ( H), ( Y), ( NN), ( PP), and ( XX)] X ( B)( 3)( l) & ( n) X ( B)( 3)( l) X ( B)( 3)( m) X ( B. 7. a & B. 7. b; B. 7. c & B. 7. d; B. 7. e & B. 7. f; or B. 7. g & B. 7. h)

8. an emissions unit, other than a coating line or printing line, that employs control equipment and is subject to 21 09 ( O), ( W), ( X), ( EE), ( KK), ( LL), ( MM), ( SS), ( TT), ( UU), ( VV), ( YY), ( ZZ), ( AAA), or ( BBB) X ( B)( 4)( b) & ( d) ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X ( B)( 4)( b) X ( B)( 4)( c) X ( J. 32 J. 47, as applicable

9. guidecoat or surfacer coating line [ 21 09 ( C)( 1)( a)( v)] X X none 10. topcoat coating operation [ 21 09 ( C)( 1)( c)] X X none 11. can coating operation ( alternative daily emission limitation) [ 21 09 ( D)( 3)] X ( D)( 3)( d) X X ( B. 8. b & B. 8. c; or B. 8. d & B. 8. e)

12. fixed roof storage tank [ 21 09 ( L)] X ( L)( 3) X ( L)( 4) X ( G. 3 & G. 4) 12 13. process unit turnaround [ 21 09 ( M)( 3)] X ( M)( 3)( b) none 14. use of cutback asphalts [ 21 09 ( N)] X ( N)( 4) none 15. cold cleaner [ 21 09 ( O)( 2)] X ( O)( 5) X ( C. 1. g)

16. open top vapor degreaser [ 21 09 ( O)( 3)] X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment X ( O)( 5) X ( C. 2. g or C. 2. h)

17. conveyorized degreaser [ 21 09 ( O)( 4)] X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment X ( O)( 5) X ( C. 3. g or C. 3. h)

18. bulk gasoline plant [ 21 09( P)] X ( P)( 4) X ( P)( 6) X ( P)( 7) X ( E. 4; & E. 5 & E. 6, or E. 8 & E. 9)

19. bulk gasoline terminal [ 21 09 ( Q)] X ( Q)( 3) X ( F. 3; &, if applicable F. 4 & F. 5)

20. gasoline dispensing facility, Stage I [ 21 09 ( R)] X ( R)( 3) X ( R)( 5) exempt facilities X ( R)( 5) exempt facilities X ( Q. 5 & Q. 7; or Q. 6 & Q. 8)

21. leaks from petroleum refinery equipment [ 21 09 ( T)] X ( T)( 1)( a) ( d) X ( T)( 1)( e)( h) X ( T)( 1)( i) none 13 22. gasoline tank truck [ 21 09 ( V)] X ( V)( 1)( a) X ( V)( 1)( a)( f) none 23. external floating roof storage tank [ 21 09 ( Z)] X ( Z)( 2)( a) ( c) X ( Z)( 2)( d)& ( e); ( Z)( 4) X ( Z)( 5) X ( H. 3 & H. 4; or H. 5. b & H. 5. c)

24. perchloroethylene dry cleaning facility [ 21 09 ( AA)] X ( AA)( 3) X ( AA)( 4) X ( D. 2 D. 4; or D. 2, D. 5 & D. 6)

25. petroleum dry cleaning facility [ 21 09 ( BB)] X ( BB)( 4) X ( BB)( 5) none 26. leaks from process units that produce organic chemicals [ 21 09 ( DD)] X throughout ( DD) X throughout ( DD) X throughout ( DD) none 27. steel door wipe cleaning operation [ 21 09 ( FF)] X X none 28. loading rack [ 21 09 ( GG)] X ( GG)( 6) X none 29. PVC film casting lines and associated solvent storage and mix tanks [ 21 09 ( HH)] X X X none 30. sheet fed, offset, lithographic printing press [ 21 09 ( II)] X ( II)( 2) X ( II)( 2) & ( 3) X ( II)( 4) none 31. nitrile butadiene rubber production operation [ 21 09 ( JJ)] X ( JJ)( 1) X ( JJ)( 1) X ( JJ)( 1) none 14 32. methyltin intermediates production process [ 21 09 ( KK)] X ( KK)( 1) X ( KK)( 1) X ( KK)( 1) none 33. reactor [ 21 09 ( LL)] X ( LL)( 3)( a) exempted unit X ( LL)( 3) ( a) exempted unit none 34. paint manufacturing operations and paint laboratory operations [ 21 09 ( MM)] X ( MM)( 8) & ( 9) none 35. mica coating or laminating line [ 21 09 ( NN)] X ( NN)( 2) X ( NN)( 2) none 36. several emissions units at a petroleum refinery, controlled by means of a flare [ 21 09 ( UU)] X ( DD)( 10)( d) ( parametric monitoring of the flare) X ( J. 39. c & J. 39. d)

37. fluid catalytic cracking unit [ 21 09 ( VV)] X ( VV)( 1)( e) X ( VV)( 1)( e) X ( VV)( 1) ( e) none 38. reactor [ 21 09 ( ZZ)] X ( DD)( 10)( d) ( parametric monitoring of the flare) X ( J. 39. c & J. 39. d)

39. gasoline dispensing facility ( Stage II) [ 21 09 ( DDD)] X ( DDD)( 3) X ( DDD)( 2) X ( Q. 13 & Q. 15; or Q. 14 & Q. 16) 15 40. any controlled emissions unit, with uncontrolled VOC emissions > 25 TPY X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X X X ( J. 32 J. 47, as applicable

41. any controlled,

new emissions unit that is not subject to 21 09, but has a PTI which specifies a VOC emission limitation and the uncontrolled emissions are > 25 TPY X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X X X ( J. 32 J. 47, as applicable

42. any uncontrolled,

new emissions unit that is not subject to 21 09, but has a PTI which specifies a VOC emission limitation and the emissions are > 25 TPY X X none 43. multiple, uncontrolled,

similar, new emissions units that are not subject to 21 09, but have a PTI which specifies a VOC emission limitation for each unit and the combined emissions are > 25 TPY X X none 16 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS:

EMISSIONS UNIT DESCRIPTION PROGRAM ELEMENTS STARS LIBRARY ( T& Cs) MONITORING RECORDKEEPING REPORTING 1. uncontrolled coating operation that is subject to 21 07 ( G)( 2), which has actual emissions > 80% of the allowable hourly or daily emission rates and is not followed by an oven which is subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1) X X X ( B. 9. e & B. 9. f; B. 9. g & B. 9. h; B. 10. a & B. 10. b; or B. 10. c & B. 10. d)

2. uncontrolled coating operation that is subject to 21 07 ( G)( 2), which has actual emissions > 80% of the allowable hourly or daily emission rates and is followed by an oven which is subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1) X X X ( B. 12. a & B. 12. b; or B. 12. c & B. 12. d) 17 3. uncontrolled coating operation that is required to employ only nonphotochemically reactive materials and is followed by an oven which is subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1) X X X ( B. 14. a or B. 14. b; and B. 14. c)

4. controlled oven that is subject to the 3 lbs/ hr & 15 lbs/ day limitations in 21 07 ( G)( 1), which has actual emissions > 80% of the allowable hourly or daily emission rates and/ or uncontrolled emissions > 25 TPY X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X X X ( B. 13. e & B. 13. f or B. 13. g & B. 13. h; & J. 32 J. 47, as applicable

5. controlled oven that is subject to the 85% overall & 90% destruction efficiency limitations in 21 07 ( G)( 1), which has actual emissions > 80% of the allowable hourly or daily emission rates and/ or uncontrolled emissions > 25 TPY X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X X X ( B. 13. i & B. 13. j; B. 13. k & B. 13. l; B. 13. m & B. 13. n; B. 13. o & B. 13. p; or B. 13. q & B. 13. r) 18 6. controlled coating operation that is subject to the 8 lbs/ hr & 40 lbs/ day limitations in 21 07 ( G)( 2), which has actual emissions > 80% of the allowable hourly or daily emission rates and/ or uncontrolled emissions > 25 TPY, and is not followed by an oven which is subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1) X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X X X ( B. 9. a & B. 9. b or B. 9. c & B. 9. d; & J. 32 J. 47, as applicable

7. controlled coating operation that is subject to the 85% overall & 90% destruction efficiency limitations in 21 07 ( G)( 2), which has actual emissions > 80% of the allowable hourly or daily emission rates and/ or uncontrolled emissions > 25 TPY, and is not followed by an oven which is subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1) X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X X X ( B. 9. i & B. 9. j; B. 9. k & B. 9. l; B. 9. m & B. 9. n; B. 9. o & B. 9. p; or B. 9. q & B. 9. r) 19 8. controlled coating operation that is subject to the 8 lbs/ hr & 40 lbs/ day limitations in 21 07 ( G)( 2), which has actual emissions > 80% of the allowable hourly or daily emission rates and/ or uncontrolled emissions > 25 TPY, and is followed by an oven which is subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1) X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X X X ( B. 12. e & B. 12. f or B. 12. g & B. 12. h; & J. 32 J. 47, as applicable

9. controlled coating operation that is subject to the 85% overall & 90% destruction efficiency limitations in 21 07 ( G)( 2), which has actual emissions > 80% of the allowable hourly or daily emission rates and/ or uncontrolled emissions > 25 TPY, and is followed by an oven which is subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1) X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X X X ( B. 12. e or B. 12. g; & J. 32 J. 47, as applicable 20 10. controlled emissions unit that is subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1) or ( G)( 2), which has actual emissions > 80% of the allowable emission rates and/ or uncontrolled emissions > 25 TPY X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X X X ( J. 32 J. 47, as applicable

11. uncontrolled oven that is subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1), which has actual emissions > 80% of the allowable hourly or daily emission rates and/ or uncontrolled emissions > 25 TPY, and is preceded by a coating operation which is either subject to 21 07 ( G)( 2) or required to employ only nonphotochemically reactive materials X X X ( B. 13. a & B. 13. b; or B. 13. c B. 13. d) 21 12. multiple, similar,

uncontrolled ovens that are subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1), which have actual emissions > 80% of the allowable hourly or daily emission rates and/ or uncontrolled emissions > 25 TPY, and are preceded by a coating operation which is either subject to 21 07 ( G)( 2) or required to employ only nonphotochemically reactive materials X X X ( B. 13. a & B. 13. b; or B. 13. c B. 13. d)

13. multiple, similar, uncontrolled coating operations that are subject to 21 07 ( G)( 2), which have combined emissions > 25 TPY and are not followed by ovens which are subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1) X X X ( B. 9. e & B. 9. f; B. 9. g & B. 9. h; B. 10. a & B. 10. b; or B. 10. c & B. 10. d)

14. multiple, similar, uncontrolled coating operations that are subject to 21 07 ( G)( 2), which have combined emissions > 25 TPY and are followed by ovens which are subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1) X X X ( B. 12. a & B. 12. b; or B. 12. c & B. 12. d) 22 15. multiple, similar, uncontrolled coating operations that are required to employ only nonphotochemically reactive materials and are followed by an oven which is subject to 21 07 ( G)( 1) X X X ( B. 14. a or B. 14. b; and B. 14. c)

16. any controlled,

new coating operation that is not subject to 21 07 ( G), but has a PTI which specifies allowable hourly and daily OC emission limitations, and either the actual emissions are > 80% of the allowable emission rates and/ or the uncontrolled emissions are > 25 TPY X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X X X ( B. 15. e & B. 15. f or B. 15. g & B. 15. h; & J. 32 J. 47, as applicable

17. any controlled,

new emissions unit that is not subject to 21 07 ( G), but has a PTI which specifies an OC emission limitation and the uncontrolled emissions are > 25 TPY X ( parametric monitoring of the control equipment) X X X ( J. 32 J. 47, as applicable 23 18. any uncontrolled,

new coating operation that is not subject to 21 07 ( G), but has a PTI which specifies allowable hourly and daily OC emission limitations, and either the actual emissions are > 80% of the allowable emission rates and/ or the uncontrolled emissions are > 25 TPY X X X ( B. 15. a & B. 15. b; or B. 15. c & B. 15. d)

19. multiple, uncontrolled,

similar, new coating operations that are not subject to 21 07 ( G), but have a PTI which specifies allowable hourly and daily OC emission limitations, and either the actual emissions are > 80% of the allowable emission rates and/ or the uncontrolled emissions are > 25 TPY X X X ( B. 15. a & B. 15. b; or B. 15. c & B. 15. d) 24 Some new emissions units may be subject to special limitations that require a monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting program. The most commonly encountered situations are summarized in the following table:

TYPE OF LIMITATION PROGRAM ELEMENTS STARS LIBRARY ( T& Cs) MONITORING RECORDKEEPING REPORTING 1. daily production rate X X X ( V. 2 & V. 3)

2. monthly production rate X X X ( V. 2 & V. 3)

3. annual production rate X X X ( V. 2 & V. 3)

4. annual production rate, based upon a rolling 12 month summation X X X ( V. 5 & V. 6; or V. 8 & V. 9)

5. annual production rate, based upon a rolling 365 day summation X X X ( V. 5 & V. 6; or V. 8 & V. 9)

6. daily coating usage X X X ( W. 2 & W. 3)

7. monthly coating usage X X X ( W. 2 & W. 3)

8. annual coating usage X X X ( W. 2 & W. 3) 25 9. annual coating usage, based upon a rolling 12 month summation X X X ( W. 5 & W. 6; or W. 8 & W. 9)

10. annual coating usage, based upon a rolling 365 day summation X X X ( W. 5 & W. 6; or W. 8 & W. 9)

11. daily operating hours X X X ( X. 2 & X. 3)

12. monthly operating hours X X X ( X. 2 & X. 3)

13. annual operating hours X X X ( X. 2 & X. 3)

14. annual operating hours, based upon a rolling 12 month summation X X X ( X. 5 & X. 6; or X. 8 & X. 9)

15. annual operating hours, based upon a rolling 365 day summation X X X ( X. 5 & X. 6; or X. 8 & X. 9)

16. annual emissions, based upon a rolling 12 month summation X X X ( Y. 2)

17. annual emissions, based upon a rolling 365 day summation X X X ( Y. 2) 26 18. annual emissions, based upon a rolling 12 month summation, and enforceable monthly limitations are required either during the first 12 months of operation or during the first 12 months of operation after issuance of the permit X X ( Y. 4)

19. annual emissions, based upon a rolling 365 day summation, and enforceable monthly limitations are required either during the first 12 months of operation or during the first 12 months of operation after issuance of the permit X X ( Y. 4)

It is not possible to develop an exhaustive listing of all the emissions units for which a detailed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting program should be employed. The above tables should cover most emissions units; however, there undoubtedly will be types of emissions units that do not fit any of the listed descriptions. In such cases, if the emissions unit meets one or more of the following criteria, the District Office or local air agency personnel should evaluate the feasibility of and require, if determined to be reasonable and beneficial, a detailed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting program to 27 ensure continued compliance with the applicable emission limitations or control requirements:

1. The actual uncontrolled emissions from the emissions unit are significant, i. e., generally greater than 25 TPY.

2. The combined, actual uncontrolled emissions from the emissions unit and other similar emissions units at the facility are significant, i. e., generally greater than 25 TPY as a combined total.

3. The actual emissions from the emissions unit are greater than 80% of the allowable emission rate.

4. The emissions unit emits one or more air contaminants which, due to their toxic or hazardous nature, could pose a threat to public health if the control device is not operated and maintained properly.

5. The emissions unit has a history of compliance problems, or the ability of the emissions unit to remain in compliance over the long term is questionable.

As mentioned earlier, the program designed for a particular emissions unit may not include all the elements of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. For example, for some emissions units, recordkeeping only may be sufficient, and for others, recordkeeping and reporting may be sufficient.

For significant emissions units that are not included in the above tables and do not meet any of the above mentioned criteria, a Title V applicant must specify in the electronic application the " proposed approach for determining compliance," the " proposed compliance monitoring method," the " proposed compliance recordkeeping method," and the " proposed compliance reporting method" for each applicable emissions limit or control requirement. For these emissions units, a detailed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting program will not be required. Any simplified, reasonable, and clearly defined program will be acceptable to the DAPC. ( In some cases, an applicant may decide to develop a more comprehensive program in order to have a 28 greater assurance of ongoing compliance for each of these smaller emissions units. That approach obviously will also be acceptable to the DAPC.)

In general, to obtain a Title V permit, the applicant must be able to demonstrate that each emissions unit is in compliance with each applicable emissions limit or control requirement. For the smaller, significant emissions units, the approach used by the applicant to initially demonstrate compliance with each applicable emission limit or control requirement can also serve as the basis for the proposed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting program for each applicable emission limit or control requirement and also for the annual certification required by OAC rule 3745 77 07 ( C)( 5). The following examples illustrate how this approach would be used:

Example # 1:

! an emissions unit with a particulate emission limit of X lbs/ hr ! no control equipment ! basis for the initial compliance demonstration: Calculations were performed using AP 42 emission factors and the maximum capacity of the emissions unit.

**********************************

The following statements would be included in the Title V, electronic application:

Proposed Approach for Determining Compliance: Calculations using AP 42 emission factors and the maximum capacity of the emissions unit will be performed to demonstrate compliance.

Proposed Compliance Monitoring Method: Not Applicable Proposed Compliance Recordkeeping Method: 29 Any changes in the maximum capacity of the emissions unit shall be recorded and kept on file.

Proposed Compliance Reporting Method: The compliance status of the emissions unit shall be reported pursuant to the annual certification required by OAC rule 3745 77 07( C)( 5). Calculations, using AP 42 emission factors and the maximum capacity of the emissions unit, shall be performed to quantify the particulate emissions.

Example # 2:

! an emissions unit with a particulate emission limit of X lbs/ hr ! control equipment employed ! basis for the initial compliance demonstration: A particulate emission test was conducted while the emissions unit was operating at or near its maximum capacity.

**********************************

The following statements would be included in the Title V, electronic application:

Proposed Approach for Determining Compliance: A particulate emission test will be conducted periodically ( at intervals consistent with the frequency required in past Ohio EPA permits), while the emissions unit is operating at or near maximum capacity, to demonstrate compliance.

Proposed Compliance Monitoring Method: Monitoring of the control equipment shall be performed in accordance with an operation and maintenance plan that is consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations.

Proposed Compliance Recordkeeping Method: Records of inspections and maintenance activities for the control equipment shall be maintained in accordance with the 30 operation and maintenance plan for the equipment. Records shall also be maintained of any particulate emission tests performed for the emissions unit.

Proposed Compliance Reporting Method: The compliance status of the emissions unit shall be reported pursuant to the annual certification required by OAC rule 3745 77 07( C)( 5). A particulate emission test shall periodically be performed to determine the controlled particulate emission rate from the emissions unit, while operating at or near its maximum capacity.

Example # 3:

! coating operation with an OC emission limit of 8 lbs/ hr ! no control equipment ! basis for the initial compliance demonstration: The applicant demonstrated through calculations that at " worst case" conditions, i. e., at the highest coatings usage rate and with the highest OC content coatings, the OC emissions were in compliance with the allowable emission rate.

**********************************

The following statements would be included in the Title V, electronic application:

Proposed Approach for Determining Compliance: Calculations shall be performed which document the OC emission rate from the emissions unit under " worst case" conditions, i. e., the highest coatings usage rate and the highest OC content coatings.

Proposed Compliance Monitoring Method: Not Applicable Proposed Compliance Recordkeeping Method: Any changes in the " worst case" conditions for the emissions unit shall be recorded and kept on file. 31 Proposed Compliance Reporting Method: The compliance status of the emissions unit shall be reported pursuant to the annual certification required by OAC rule 3745 77 07( C)( 5). Calculations shall be provided which document the OC emission rate from the emissions unit under " worst case" conditions, i. e., the highest coatings usage rate and the highest OC content coatings.

It would be nearly impossible to develop enough examples to cover all the smaller, significant emissions units. However, assuming the applicant does not want to develop a more detailed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting program, a simplified, reasonable program can be developed for any emissions unit by beginning with the approach used to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit or control requirement.

JO May 17, 1996 revised November 1, 1996


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38741-38742]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13817]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC22-18-000]

Commission Information Collection Activity (FERC-715); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collections, FERC-715 (Annual Transmission Planning and
Evaluation Report).

DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due August 29,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments (identified by Docket No. IC22-
18-000) on FERC-715 by one of the following methods:
    Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user
assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
[email protected], or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-715, Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation
Report.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0171.
    Abstract: Acting under section 213 of the Federal Power Act \1\ and
18 CFR 141.300, FERC requires each transmitting utility that operates
integrated transmission system facilities rated above 100 kilovolts
(kV) to submit annually:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824l.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Contact information;
     Base case power flow data (if the respondent does not
participate in the development and use of regional power flow data);
     Transmission system maps and diagrams used by the
respondent for transmission planning;
     A detailed description of the transmission planning
reliability criteria used to evaluate system performance for time
frames and planning horizons used in regional and corporate planning;
     A detailed description of the respondent's transmission
planning assessment practices (including, but not limited to, how
reliability criteria are applied and the steps taken in performing
transmission planning studies); and
     A detailed evaluation of the respondent's anticipated
system performance as measured against its stated reliability criteria
using its stated assessment practices.
    FERC-715 enables the Commission to use the information as part of
their regulatory oversight functions which includes:
     The review of rates and charges;
     The disposition of jurisdictional facilities;
     The consolidation and mergers;
     The adequacy of supply and;
     Reliability of the nation's transmission grid.
    FERC-715 also helps the Commission resolve transmission disputes.
Additionally, the Office of Electric Reliability (OER) uses the FERC-
715 data to help protect and improve the reliability and security of
the nation's bulk power system. OER oversees the development and review
of mandatory reliability and security standards and ensures compliance
with the approved standards by the users, owners, and operators of the
bulk power system. OER also monitors and addresses issues concerning
the nation's bulk power system including assessments of resource
adequacy and reliability.
    Without the FERC-715 data, the Commission would be unable to
evaluate planned projects or requests related to transmission.
    Type of Respondent: Integrated transmission system facilities rated
at or above 100 kilovolts (kV).
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \2\ The Commission estimates the total
annual burden and cost \3\ for this information collection as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Burden'' is 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. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \3\ The Commission staff estimates that the industry's hourly
cost for wages plus benefits is similar to the Commission's $87.00
FY 2021 average hourly cost for wages and benefits.

                                              FERC-715--Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation Report
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annual number                                              Total annual burden
           Type of response               Number of     of responses    Total number     Average burden & cost     hours & total annual      Cost per
                                         respondents   per respondent   of responses         per response                  cost           respondent ($)
                                                  (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).....................  (3) * (4) = (5)........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Transmission Planning and                  111               1             111  160 hrs.; $13,920.......  17,760 hrs.; $1,545,120         $13,920
 Evaluation Report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: June 22, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13817 Filed 6-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 42151]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17393]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[OMB Control No. 3235-0687, SEC File No. 270-638]

Submission Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 239.

    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 this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 239 (17 CFR 230.239) provides exemptions under the Securities
Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.), the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939
(U.S.C. 77aaa et seq.) for security-based swaps issued by certain
clearing agencies satisfying certain conditions. The purpose of the
information required by Rule 239 is to make certain information about
security-based swaps that may be cleared by the registered or the
exempt clearing agencies available to eligible contract participants
and other market participants. We estimate that each registered or
exempt clearing agency issuing security-based swaps in its function as
a central counterparty will spend approximately 2 hours each time it
provides or update the information in its agreements relating to
security-based swaps or on its Web site. We estimate that each
registered or exempt clearing agency will provide or update the
information approximately 20 times per year. In addition, we estimate
that 75% of the 2 hours per response (1.5 hours) is prepared internally
by the clearing agency for a total annual reporting burden of 180 hours
(1.5 hours per response x 20 times x 6 respondents).
    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.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (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 by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: July 9, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17393 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 48416-48418]
[DOCID:fr19au08-78]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58351; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending NYSE Rule 104(b) To Provide for an Automated Opening Message
That Will Be Effectuated Through the Specialist Application Programmed
Interface To Allow Specialists To Automatically Open a Security on a
Trade

August 13, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 5, 2008, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. NYSE has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 104(b) to provide for an
automated opening message that will be effectuated through the
Specialist Application Programmed Interface (``Specialist API\SM\'' or
``SAPI'') to allow specialists to automatically open a security on a
trade. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://
www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Rule 104(b) to provide for
an automated opening message that will be effectuated through the SAPI
to allow specialists to automatically open a security on a trade.
Background
    Pursuant to NYSE Rule 104, Exchange specialists, in their capacity
as dealers for their assigned securities, maintain systems that use
proprietary algorithms, based on predetermined parameters, to
electronically participate in the Exchange market (``Specialist
Algorithm''). The Specialist Algorithm communicates with the NYSE
Display Book[supreg] system \5\ via the SAPI. The Specialist Algorithm
is intended to replicate electronically some of the activities
specialists are permitted to engage in on the Floor in the auction
market and to facilitate the specialists' ability to fulfill their
obligation to maintain a fair and orderly market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Display Book[supreg] system is an order management and
execution facility. The Display Book system receives and displays
orders to the specialists, contains the Book, and provides a
mechanism to execute and report transactions and publish the results
to the Consolidated Tape. The Display Book system is connected to a
number of other Exchange systems for the purposes of comparison,
surveillance, and reporting information to customers and other
market data and national market systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specialists on the Exchange are responsible for initiating trading
(the ``opening'') in their assigned securities. Pursuant to NYSE Rule
123D, it ``is the responsibility of each specialist to ensure that
registered stocks open as close to the opening bell as possible, while
at the same time not unduly hasty, particularly when at a price
disparity from the prior close.'' Specialist Algorithms may generate
quoting and trading messages as prescribed by NYSE Rule 104(b)(i).
Specialists may either open trading in their assigned securities with a
manual transaction or, pursuant to NYSE Rule 104(b), with an automated
quote.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 56588 (October 1, 2007),
72 FR 57366 (October 9, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-92).

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

Proposed Automated Open on a Trade

    Through this filing, the Exchange seeks to amend NYSE Rule 104(b)
to allow a specialist to automatically open his or her assigned
security with an automated trade. Specifically, the Exchange seeks to
amend NYSE Rule 104(b) to add an automated opening message provision
which will allow the SAPI to generate a message to open the security
with an automated transaction. In so doing the Exchange seeks merely to
automate a currently approved specialist function.
    Because opening securities in a timely, fair, and orderly manner is
consistent with the specialist's obligations under NYSE Rules 104 and
123D, the Exchange believes it is important to provide the specialists
with the ability to have the SAPI generate an automated message that
will assist the specialists in opening their assigned securities with a
transaction.
    The Exchange estimates that the implementation of an automated
message through the SAPI to open a security on a trade would allow for
approximately 30% of the securities traded on the Exchange to be opened
algorithmically on a trade or a quote.
    The Exchange notes that specialists must still comply with all NYSE
rules when utilizing the open on trade technology, including but not
limited to, NYSE rules relating to depth and continuity, mandatory
indications, Rule 79A regarding Floor Official Approval for 1 and 2
points price movements, and any other rule that might require Floor
Official consultation in connection with an open. Specialists are not
exempt from requirements regarding the open by using an automated means
for effecting an opening.
    The Exchange believes that providing the specialists with this
ability will continue to promote the efficient operation of the NYSE
market and provide customers with continued speed of execution at the
opening. Relying solely on manual trade openings limits the efficiency
of the specialists. By allowing specialists to automatically open
securities with a transaction through the SAPI will promote timelier
openings of securities on the Exchange. Moreover, providing specialists
with the ability to automatically open securities with an automated
transaction will allow specialists to focus their attention on those
securities that require the expertise of specialists to facilitate
price discovery and cushion volatility in securities that may have news
that may impact trading, ultimately benefiting Exchange customers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \7\ of the Act, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule change is designed to support the
principles of Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act \8\ in that it seeks to
assure economically efficient execution of securities transactions by
making it easier for specialists to open securities in which they are
registered on a quote in a timely fashion by providing an automated
trading message that is effectuated through the SAPI. Automating this
trading message will promote greater efficiency on the Floor and will
also promote timelier openings of securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to the 30th day after the date of
filing.\11\ However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the Commission
to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.\13\ The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. Waiver
of this period would allow the Exchange to immediately provide
specialists with the ability to facilitate openings of securities
through the Specialist Algorithm. This should allow a specialist to
focus his or her attention on those securities that require the
expertise of a specialist to facilitate price discovery and cushion
volatility. The Commission also notes that specialists'
responsibilities and obligations with respect to openings remain
unchanged, whether a specialist utilizes its SAPI to open a security or
not. For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby designates the
proposal as operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2008-73 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-73. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-73 and should be
submitted on or before September 9, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-19130 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23472-23474]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09289]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 748

[Docket No. 130322279-3279-01]
RIN 0694-AF90

Amendments to Existing Validated End-User Authorizations: CSMC
Technologies Corporation in the People's Republic of China (PRC)

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends
the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to revise the existing
Authorization Validated End-User (VEU) listing for CSMC Technologies
Corporation (CSMC) in the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Specifically, BIS amends Supplement No. 7 to part 748 of the EAR to
update VEU CSMC's current list of ``eligible destinations.''

DATES: This rule is effective April 19, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Nies-Vogel, Chair, End-User
Review Committee, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
by telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Authorization Validated End-User

    Validated end-users (VEUs) are designated entities located in
eligible destinations to which eligible items may be exported,
reexported, or transferred (in-country) under a general authorization
instead of a license. The names of the VEUs, as well as the date they
were so designated, and their respective eligible destinations and
items are identified in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 of the EAR. Under
the terms described in that supplement, VEUs may obtain eligible items
without an export license from BIS, in conformity with Section 748.15
of the EAR. Eligible items vary between VEUs but may include
commodities, software, and technology, except those controlled for
missile technology or crime control reasons.
    VEUs are reviewed and approved by the U.S. Government in accordance
with the provisions of Section 748.15 and Supplement Nos. 8 and 9 to
part 748 of the EAR. The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of
representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Energy and
Commerce, and other agencies, as appropriate, is responsible for
administering the VEU program. BIS amended the EAR in a final rule
published on June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33646) to create Authorization VEU.

Amendment to an Existing Validated End-User Authorization in the PRC

Revisions to the List of Eligible Destinations and Postal Code for CSMC
Technologies Corporation

    In this rule, BIS amends Supplement No. 7 to part 748 of the EAR to
amend CSMC's current list of eligible destinations. Specifically, BIS
removes Wuxi CR Semiconductor Wafers and Chips Co., Ltd. from CSMC's
list of eligible destinations. BIS is not making this change in
response to activities of concern. Rather, BIS is making this change to
CSMC's list of VEU-eligible destinations as a result of the merger of
Wuxi CR Semiconductor Wafers & Chips Co., Ltd. and CSMC Technologies
Fab 1 Co., Ltd., which is also listed as one of CSMC's eligible
destinations. In addition, BIS amends CSMC's authorization by updating
the postal code for one of CSMC's eligible destinations.

Names and Former Addresses of Facilities

    Validated End-User: CSMC Technologies Corporation.
    Eligible Destinations:

CSMC Technologies Fab 1 Co., Ltd., 14 Liangxi Road, Wuxi, Jiangsu
214061, China.
CSMC Technologies Fab 2 Co., Ltd., 8 Xinzhou Rd., Wuxi National New Hi-
Tech Industrial Development Zone, Wuxi, Jiangsu 214061, China.
Wuxi CR Semiconductor, Wafers and Chips Co., Ltd., 14 Liangxi Road,
Wuxi, Jiangsu 214061, China.

Names and Updated Addresses of Facilities

    Validated End-User: CSMC Technologies Corporation.
    Eligible Destinations:

CSMC Technologies Fab 1 Co., Ltd., 14 Liangxi Road, Wuxi, Jiangsu
214061, China.
CSMC Technologies Fab 2 Co., Ltd., 8 Xinzhou Road, Wuxi National New
Hi-Tech Industrial Development Zone, Wuxi, Jiangsu 214028, China.

    Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act (the Act) has
been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of
August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), as extended most
recently by the Notice of August 15, 2012, 77 FR 49699 (August 16,
2012), has continued the EAR in effect under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the
provisions of the Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by
law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
    2. This rule involves collections previously approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0694-0088, ``Multi-
Purpose Application,'' which carries a burden hour estimate of 43.8
minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748; and for recordkeeping,
reporting and review requirements in connection with Authorization VEU,
which carries an estimated burden of 30 minutes per submission. This
rule is expected to result in a decrease in license applications
submitted to BIS. Total burden hours associated with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA) and OMB Control
Number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase significantly as a result
of this rule.
    Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA,
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
    4. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive requirements that this rule be
subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because they
are unnecessary.
    In determining whether to grant VEU designations, a committee of
U.S. Government agencies evaluates information about and commitments
made by candidate companies, the nature and terms of which are set
forth in 15 CFR part 748, Supplement No. 8. The criteria for evaluation
by the committee are set forth in 15 CFR 748.15(a)(2).
    The information, commitments, and criteria for this extensive
review were all established through the notice of proposed rulemaking
and public comment process (71 FR 38313 (July 6, 2006) (proposed rule),
and 72 FR 33646 (June 19, 2007) (final rule)). Given the similarities
between the authorizations provided under the VEU program and export
licenses (as discussed further below), the publication of this
information does not establish new policy. In publishing this final
rule, BIS simply updates the eligible destinations of the named end-
user and a portion of their addresses. These changes have been made
within the established regulatory framework of the Authorization VEU
program. Further, this rule does not abridge the rights of the public
or eliminate the public's option to export under any of the forms of
authorization set forth in the EAR.
    Publication of this rule in other than final form is unnecessary
because the authorizations granted in the rule are consistent with the
authorizations granted to exporters for individual licenses (and
amendments or revisions thereof), which do not undergo public review.
In addition, as with license applications, VEU authorization
applications contain confidential business information, which is
necessary for the extensive review conducted by the U.S. Government in
assessing such applications. This information is extensively reviewed
according to the criteria for VEU authorizations, as set out in 15 CFR
748.15(a)(2). Additionally, just as the interagency reviews license
applications, the authorizations granted under the VEU program involve
interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-
public sources, including licensing data, and the measurement of such
information against the VEU authorization criteria. Given the nature of
the review, and in light of the parallels between the VEU application
review process and the review of license applications, public comment
on this authorization and subsequent amendments prior to publication is
unnecessary. Moreover, because, as noted above, the criteria and
process for authorizing and administering VEUs were developed with
public comments, allowing additional public comment on this amendment
to individual VEU authorizations, which was determined according to
those criteria, is unnecessary.
    Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not
take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in
the Federal Register. BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in
effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) because the delay would be
contrary to the public interest. BIS is simply amending a VEU
authorization by updating the ``eligible destinations'' of the named
end-user and a single postal code. Delaying this action's effectiveness
could cause confusion with the VEU status of the list of companies
identified in this rule due to the changes made to that list.
Accordingly, it is contrary to the public interest to delay this rule's
effectiveness.
    No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an
opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a
notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are
not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
are not applicable. As a result, no final regulatory flexibility
analysis is required and none has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 748

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, Part 748 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended
as follows:

PART 748--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 748 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66
FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2012, 77
FR 49699 (August 16, 2012).

0
2. Supplement No. 7 to part 748 is amended by revising the entry for
``CSMC Technologies Corporation'' in ``China (People's Republic of)''
as follows:

Supplement No. 7 to Part 748--Authorization Validated End-User (VEU);
List of Validated End-Users, Respective Items Eligible for Export,
Reexport and Transfer, and Eligible Destinations

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Eligible items (by                           Federal Register
        Country           Validated end user           ECCN)          Eligible destination        citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                        CSMC Technologies      1C350.c.3,             CSMC Technologies     76 FR 2802, 1/18/11.
                         Corporation.           1C350.c.11, 2B230.a,   Fab 1 Co., Ltd., 14  76 FR 37634, 6/28/
                                                2B230.b, 2B350.f,      Liangxi Road, Wuxi,   11.
                                                2B350.g, 2B350.h,      Jiangsu 214061,      77 FR 10953, 2/24/
                                                3B001.c.1.a,           China.                12.
                                                3B001.c.2.a,          CSMC Technologies     78 FR [INSERT FR
                                                3B001.e, 3B001.h       Fab 2 Co., Ltd., 8    PAGE NUMBER] 4/19/
                                                (except for            Xinzhou Rd. Wuxi      13.
                                                multilayer masks       National New Hi-
                                                with a phase shift     Tech Industrial
                                                layer designed to      Development Zone,
                                                produce ``space        Wuxi, Jiangsu
                                                qualified''            214028, China.
                                                semiconductor
                                                devices), 3C002.a,
                                                and 3C004.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 15, 2013.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-09289 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P