m The average facility cost is calculated by dividing the total facility burden by the number of facilities ( 228) complying with the rule. 15 Attachment 4 TABLE 1c. ONE TIME RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FIFTH YEAR FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE Burden itema A Personhours per occurrence B Number of occurrences per year C Technical personhours per respondent per year ( C = A * B) D Respondents per yearb E Technical person hours per year ( E = C * D) F Management person hours per year ( F = E * 0.05) G Clerical person hours per year ( G = E * 0.1) H Respondent person hours per year ( H = E + F + G) I Labor cost,

$ c 1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructionsd 1 1 1 4 4 0.2 0.4 5 $ 246 B. Required Activities C. Create Information Included in 3E D. Gather Existing Information Included in 3E E. Write Report ° Notification of construction/

reconstruction 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 491 ° Notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 491 ° Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 491 ° Notification of applicability of standardd 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 491 ° Emissions averaging plane 120 1 120 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 ° Request for routine control system maintenance exemptionf 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 491 ° Notification of initial performance testg 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 491 ° Notification of compliance status With performance testg 80 1 80 4 320 16 32 368 $ 19,649 Without performance testh 120 1 120 1 120 6 12 138 $ 7,368 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions Included in 3A B. Plan Activities N/ A C. Implement Activities N/ A D. Develop Record Systemi 40 1 40 4 160 8 16 184 $ 9,825 E. Develop Startup, Shutdown,

Malfunction Planj 100 1 100 4 400 20 40 460 $ 24,562 F. Time to Train Personnelk 40 1 40 4 160 8 16 184 $ 9,825 G. Time for Audits N/ A ONE TIME BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) NATIONWIDE: l 1,212 61 121 1,394 $ 74,422 Average cost per facilitym 232 $ 321 16 Attachment 4 TABLE 1c. ( continued)

a See Attachment 2 for further explanation of respondent activities.

b There are an estimated 212 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP. These 212 facilities include 166 facilities that must install control systems to comply with the NESHAP and 46 facilities that already have the required control systems. Assuming 19 new facilities built over the first 5 years after the effective date ( including 6 oriented strand board, 5 medium density fiberboard,

4 particleboard, and 4 laminated veneer lumber facilities), approximately 4 new facilities will be built each year.

c Labor cost assumes a rate of $ 53.64/ hour for technical labor, $ 80.84/ hour for management labor, and $ 37.22/ hour for clerical labor.

d This will occur only in the first year after a facility becomes subject to the rule.

e Assumes no existing facilities will choose to use the emissions averaging option because all facilities assumed to install control systems; new facilities are not allowed to use emissions averaging.

f Assumes all facilities will submit a request for routine control device maintenance exemption.

g Assumes all facilities will comply by conducting a performance test( s). The notification of compliance status includes the report of the performance test( s).

h Assumes 1 new facility per year with softwood veneer dryers will submit a notification of compliance status without performance tests.

i Assumes 40 hours to develop a record system for recording parameter monitoring information.

j Assumes 80 hours to draft the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and another 20 hours of review/ revisions, for a total of 100 hours.

k Assumes 40 hours to train personnel.

l The one time burden and cost are equal to the totals added down each column.

m The average facility cost is calculated by dividing the total facility burden by the number of facilities ( 232) subject to the rule. 17 Attachment 4 TABLE 1d. RECURRENT RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FIFTH YEAR FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE Burden itema A Personhours per occurrence B Number of occurrences per year C Technical personhours per respondent per year ( C = A * B) D Respondents per yearb E Technical person hours per year ( E = C * D) F Management person hours per year ( F = E * 0.05) G Clerical personhours per year ( G = E * 0.1) H Respondent person hours per year ( H = E + F + G) I Labor cost,

$ c 1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions N/ A B. Required Activities N/ A C. Create Information N/ A D. Gather Existing Information N/ A E. Write Report ° Initial compliance reportd No deviationse 8 1 8 4 32 2 3 37 $ 1,965 Deviationse 24 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reportf 8 1 8 4 32 2 3 37 $ 1,965 Control system maintenance reportg 8 1 8 4 32 2 3 37 $ 1,965 Emissions averaging plan reporth 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 ° Semi annual compliance reportd No deviationse 8 2 16 205 3,280 164 328 3,772 $ 201,405 Deviationse 24 2 48 23 1,104 55 110 1,270 $ 67,790 Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reportf 8 2 16 228 3,648 182 365 4,195 $ 224,002 Control system maintenance reportg 8 2 16 228 3,648 182 365 4,195 $ 224,002 Emissions averaging plan reporth 20 2 40 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions N/ A B. Plan Activities N/ A C. Implement Activities N/ A D. Develop Record System N/ A E. Time to Enter Information ° Records of startup, shutdown,

and malfunction 1.5 52 78 232 18,096 905 1,810 20,810 $ 1,111,167 ° Records of continuous compliancei Record parameters/

information 0.25 365 91 232 21,170 1,059 2,117 24,346 $ 1,299,923 Compile data 24 2 48 232 11,136 557 1,114 12,806 $ 683,795 18 Attachment 4 TABLE 1d. ( continued)

Burden itema A Personhours per occurrence B Number of occurrences per year C Technical personhours per respondent per year ( C = A * B) D Respondents per yearb E Technical person hours per year ( E = C * D) F Management person hours per year ( F = E * 0.05) G Clerical personhours per year ( G = E * 0.1) H Respondent person hours per year ( H = E + F + G) I Labor cost,

$ c Enter/ verify information for semi annual reports 16 2 32 232 7,424 371 742 8,538 $ 455,863 ° Records of control system maintenance Included in 3E ° Records of emissions averaging credits/ debits Included in 3E F. Calibration of CMSj 16 1 16 232 3,712 186 371 4,269 $ 227,932 G. Time to Train Personnel N/ A H. Time for Refresher Training for Personnelk 16 1 16 228 3,648 182 365 4,195 $ 224,002 I. Time for Audits N/ A RECURRENT BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) NATIONWIDE: l 76,962 3,848 7,696 88,506 $ 4,725,775 Average cost per facilitym 232 $ 20,370 a See Attachment 2 for further explanation of respondent activities.

b There are an estimated 212 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP. These 212 facilities include 166 facilities that must install control systems to comply with the NESHAP and 46 facilities that already have the required control systems. Assuming 19 new facilities built over the first 5 years after the effective date ( including 6 oriented strand board, 5 medium density fiberboard,

4 particleboard, and 4 laminated veneer lumber facilities), approximately 4 new facilities will be built each year.

c Labor cost assumes a rate of $ 53.64/ hour for technical labor, $ 80.84/ hour for management labor, and $ 37.22/ hour for clerical labor.

d Assumes that the respondents' compliance date is in the first half of the year, so respondents will submit one compliance report the first year that they start complying with the rule and two compliance reports the following years.

e Assumes 90 percent of facilities will have no deviations, and 10 percent will have deviations.

f Assumes all facilities will report actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that are consistent with the SSMP.

g Assumes all facilities will submit a description of the control device maintenance performed.

h Assumes no existing facilities will choose to use the emissions averaging option; new facilities are not allowed to use emissions averaging.

i Includes records of CMS data for emission limitations and various records for work practice standards.

j Assumes calibration of the CMS will require 8 hours per year for each monitor. Assuming a total of 2 CMS for each facility, a total of 16 hours per year per facility is required.

k Assumes 2 days ( 16 hours) to provide refresher training for personnel.

l The recurrent burden and cost are equal to the totals added down each column.

m The average facility cost is calculated by dividing the total facility burden by the number of facilities ( 232) complying with the rule. 19 Attachment 4 TABLE 1e. ONE TIME RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS SIXTH YEAR FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE Burden itema A Personhours per occurrence B Number of occurrences per year C Technical personhours per respondent per year ( C = A * B) D Respondents per yearb E Technical person hours per year ( E = C * D) F Management person hours per year ( F = E * 0.05) G Clerical person hours per year ( G = E * 0.1) H Respondent person hours per year ( H = E + F + G) I Labor cost,

$ c 1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructionsd 1 1 1 4 4 0.2 0.4 5 $ 246 B. Required Activities C. Create Information Included in 3E D. Gather Existing Information Included in 3E E. Write Report ° Notification of construction/

reconstruction 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 491 ° Notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 491 ° Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 491 ° Notification of applicability of standardd 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 491 ° Emissions averaging plane 120 1 120 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 ° Request for routine control system maintenance exemptionf 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 491 ° Notification of initial performance testg 2 1 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 491 ° Notification of compliance status With performance testg 80 1 80 4 320 16 32 368 $ 19,649 Without performance testh 120 1 120 1 120 6 12 138 $ 7,368 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions Included in 3A B. Plan Activities N/ A C. Implement Activities N/ A D. Develop Record Systemi 40 1 40 4 160 8 16 184 $ 9,825 E. Develop Startup, Shutdown,

Malfunction Planj 100 1 100 4 400 20 40 460 $ 24,562 F. Time to Train Personnelk 40 1 40 4 160 8 16 184 $ 9,825 G. Time for Audits N/ A ONE TIME BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) NATIONWIDE: l 1,212 61 121 1,394 $ 74,422 Average cost per facilitym 236 $ 315 20 Attachment 4 TABLE 1e. ( continued)

a See Attachment 2 for further explanation of respondent activities.

b There are an estimated 212 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP. These 212 facilities include 166 facilities that must install control systems to comply with the NESHAP and 46 facilities that already have the required control systems. Assuming 19 new facilities built over the first 5 years after the effective date ( including 6 oriented strand board, 5 medium density fiberboard,

4 particleboard, and 4 laminated veneer lumber facilities), approximately 4 new facilities will be built each year.

c Labor cost assumes a rate of $ 53.64/ hour for technical labor, $ 80.84/ hour for management labor, and $ 37.22/ hour for clerical labor.

d This will occur only in the first year after a facility becomes subject to the rule.

e Assumes no existing facilities will choose to use the emissions averaging option because all facilities assumed to install control systems; new facilities are not allowed to use emissions averaging.

f Assumes all facilities will submit a request for routine control device maintenance exemption.

g Assumes all facilities will comply by conducting a performance test( s). The notification of compliance status includes the report of the performance test( s).

h Assumes 1 new facility per year with softwood veneer dryers will submit a notification of compliance status without performance tests.

i Assumes 40 hours to develop a record system for recording parameter monitoring information.

j Assumes 80 hours to draft the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and another 20 hours of review/ revisions, for a total of 100 hours.

k Assumes 40 hours to train personnel.

l The one time burden and cost are equal to the totals added down each column.

m The average facility cost is calculated by dividing the total facility burden by the number of facilities ( 236) subject to the rule. 21 Attachment 4 TABLE 1f. RECURRENT RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS SIXTH YEAR FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE Burden itema A Personhours per occurrence B Number of occurrences per year C Technical personhours per respondent per year ( C = A * B) D Respondents per yearb E Technical person hours per year ( E = C * D) F Management person hours per year ( F = E * 0.05) G Clerical personhours per year ( G = E * 0.1) H Respondent person hours per year ( H = E + F + G) I Labor cost,

$ c 1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions N/ A B. Required Activities N/ A C. Create Information N/ A D. Gather Existing Information N/ A E. Write Report ° Initial compliance reportd No deviationse 8 1 8 4 32 2 3 37 $ 1,965 Deviationse 24 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reportf 8 1 8 4 32 2 3 37 $ 1,965 Control system maintenance reportg 8 1 8 4 32 2 3 37 $ 1,965 Emissions averaging plan reporth 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 ° Semi annual compliance reportd No deviationse 8 2 16 209 3,344 167 334 3,846 $ 205,335 Deviationse 24 2 48 23 1,104 55 110 1,270 $ 67,790 Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reportf 8 2 16 232 3,712 186 371 4,269 $ 227,932 Control system maintenance reportg 8 2 16 232 3,712 186 371 4,269 $ 227,932 Emissions averaging plan reporth 20 2 40 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions N/ A B. Plan Activities N/ A C. Implement Activities N/ A D. Develop Record System N/ A E. Time to Enter Information ° Records of startup, shutdown,

and malfunction 1.5 52 78 236 18,408 920 1,841 21,169 $ 1,130,325 ° Records of continuous compliancei Record parameters/

information 0.25 365 91 236 21,535 1,077 2,154 24,765 $ 1,322,335 Compile data 24 2 48 236 11,328 566 1,133 13,027 $ 695,585 22 Attachment 4 TABLE 1f. ( continued)

Burden itema A Personhours per occurrence B Number of occurrences per year C Technical personhours per respondent per year ( C = A * B) D Respondents per yearb E Technical person hours per year ( E = C * D) F Management person hours per year ( F = E * 0.05) G Clerical personhours per year ( G = E * 0.1) H Respondent person hours per year ( H = E + F + G) I Labor cost,

$ c Enter/ verify information for semi annual reports 16 2 32 236 7,552 378 755 8,685 $ 463,723 ° Records of control system maintenance Included in 3E ° Records of emissions averaging credits/ debits Included in 3E F. Calibration of CMSj 16 1 16 236 3,776 189 378 4,342 $ 231,862 G. Time to Train Personnel N/ A H. Time for Refresher Training for Personnelk 16 1 16 232 3,712 186 371 4,269 $ 227,932 I. Time for Audits N/ A RECURRENT BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) NATIONWIDE: l 78,279 3,914 7,828 90,021 $ 4,806,644 Average cost per facilitym 236 $ 20,367 a See Attachment 2 for further explanation of respondent activities.

b There are an estimated 212 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP. These 212 facilities include 166 facilities that must install control systems to comply with the NESHAP and 46 facilities that already have the required control systems. Assuming 19 new facilities built over the first 5 years after the effective date ( including 6 oriented strand board, 5 medium density fiberboard,

4 particleboard, and 4 laminated veneer lumber facilities), approximately 4 new facilities will be built each year.

c Labor cost assumes a rate of $ 53.64/ hour for technical labor, $ 80.84/ hour for management labor, and $ 37.22/ hour for clerical labor.

d Assumes that the respondents' compliance date is in the first half of the year, so respondents will submit one compliance report the first year that they start complying with the rule and two compliance reports the following years.

e Assumes 90 percent of facilities will have no deviations, and 10 percent will have deviations.

f Assumes all facilities will report actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that are consistent with the SSMP.

g Assumes all facilities will submit a description of the control device maintenance performed.

h Assumes no existing facilities will choose to use the emissions averaging option; new facilities are not allowed to use emissions averaging.

i Includes records of CMS data for emission limitations and various records for work practice standards.

j Assumes calibration of the CMS will require 8 hours per year for each monitor. Assuming a total of 2 CMS for each facility, a total of 16 hours per year per facility is required.

k Assumes 2 days ( 16 hours) to provide refresher training for personnel.

l The recurrent burden and cost are equal to the totals added down each column.

m The average facility cost is calculated by dividing the total facility burden by the number of facilities ( 236) complying with the rule. 23 TABLE 2a. AGENCY BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOURTH YEAR FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE Activity A EPA hours per operation B Operations per yeara C Technical person hours per year ( C = A * B) D Management person hours per year ( D = C * 0.05) E Clerical person hours per year ( E = C * 0.1) F Total person hours per year ( F = C + D + E) G Labor cost,

$ b 1. Attend Initial Performance Testc 40 22 880 44 88 1,012 $ 44,855 2. Attend Repeat Performance Testd 40 1 40 2 4 46 $ 2,039 3. Litigation N/ A 4. Report Review A. Review of Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 B. Review of Notification of Anticipated Startup 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 C. Review of Notification of Actual Startup 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 D. Review of Notification of Applicability of Standard 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 E. Review of Emissions Averaging Plane 40 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 F. Review of Request for Routine Control System Maintenance Exemptionf 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 G. Review of Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 216 432 22 43 497 $ 22,020 H. Review of Notification of Compliance Status ° With performance testg 40 216 8,640 432 864 9,936 $ 440,394 ° Without performance testh 40 238 9,520 476 952 10,948 $ 485,249 I. Review of Initial Compliance Reporti ° No deviationsj 2 194 388 19 39 446 $ 19,777 ° Deviationsj 8 22 176 9 18 202 $ 8,971 ° Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reportk 2 216 432 22 43 497 $ 22,020 ° Control system maintenance reportl 2 216 432 22 43 497 $ 22,020 ° Emissions averaging reporte 8 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 J. Review of Semi Annual Compliance Reporti ° No deviationsj 2 22 44 2 4 51 $ 2,243 ° Deviationsj 8 2 16 0.8 2 18 $ 816 ° Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reportk 2 24 48 2 5 55 $ 2,447 ° Control system maintenance reportl 2 24 48 2 5 55 $ 2,447 ° Emissions averaging reporte 8 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY): m 21,136 1,057 2,114 24,306 $ 1,077,334 TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR TEST ATTENDEDn = ( 1 person * 23 facilities/ yr * 2 days/ facility * $ 50 per diem) + ($ 400/ round trip * 23 round trip/ yr): $ 11,500 TOTAL COST = TOTAL COST ( SALARY) + TRAVEL EXPENSES: $ 1,088,834 24 TABLE 2a. ( continued)

a Operations per year are equal to the number of operations per facility times the number of facilities. There are an estimated 212 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP. These 212 facilities include 166 facilities that must install control systems to comply with the NESHAP and 46 facilities that already have the required control systems. Assuming 19 new facilities built over the first 5 years after the effective date ( including 6 oriented strand board, 5 medium density fiberboard, 4 particleboard, and 4 laminated veneer lumber facilities), approximately 4 new facilities will be built each year.

b Labor cost assumes a rate of $ 44.75/ hour for technical labor, $ 73.97/ hour for management labor, and $ 25.23/ hour for clerical labor.

c Assumes all facilities will conduct initial performance tests, and EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of the initial tests.

d Assumes 5 percent of facilities will repeat the performance tests, and EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of the repeat tests.

e Assumes no existing facilities will choose to use the emissions averaging option because all facilities assumed to install control systems; new facilities are not allowed to use emissions averaging.

f Assumes all facilities will submit a request for routine control device maintenance exemption.

g Assumes all facilities will conduct an initial performance test( s) and submit a notification of compliance status that includes the report of the performance test( s).

h Assumes 1 new facility per year with softwood veneer dryers will submit a notification of compliance status without performance tests. Assumes that 22 existing facilities with dry rotary dryers, 2 existing facilities with hardwood veneer dryers, and 90 existing facilities with softwood veneer dryers will submit notifications of compliance status in the fourth year after the effective date.

i Assumes that the facilities' compliance date is in the first half of the year, so facilities will submit one compliance report the first year that they start complying with the rule and two compliance reports the following years.

j Assumes 90 percent of facilities will have no deviations, and 10 percent will have deviations.

k Assumes all facilities will report actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that are consistent with the SSMP.

l Assumes all facilities will submit a description of the control device maintenance performed.

m The burden and cost are equal to the totals added down each column.

n Tests attended include 22 initial performance tests and 1 repeat performance test, for a total of 23 tests attended. 25 TABLE 2b. AGENCY BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FIFTH YEAR FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE Activity A EPA hours per operation B Operations per yeara C Technical person hours per year ( C = A * B) D Management person hours per year ( D = C * 0.05) E Clerical person hours per year ( E = C * 0.1) F Total person hours per year ( F = C + D + E) G Labor cost,

$ b 1. Attend Initial Performance Testc 40 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 2. Attend Repeat Performance Testd 40 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 3. Litigation N/ A 4. Report Review A. Review of Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 B. Review of Notification of Anticipated Startup 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 C. Review of Notification of Actual Startup 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 D. Review of Notification of Applicability of Standard 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 E. Review of Emissions Averaging Plane 40 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 F. Review of Request for Routine Control System Maintenance Exemptionf 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 G. Review of Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 H. Review of Notification of Compliance Status ° With performance testg 40 4 160 8 16 184 $ 8,155 ° Without performance testh 40 1 40 2 4 46 $ 2,039 I. Review of Initial Compliance Reporti ° No deviationsj 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 ° Deviationsj 8 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 ° Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reportk 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 ° Control system maintenance reportl 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 ° Emissions averaging reporte 8 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 J. Review of Semi Annual Compliance Reporti ° No deviationsj 2 410 820 41 82 943 $ 41,797 ° Deviationsj 8 46 368 18 37 423 $ 18,758 ° Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reportk 2 456 912 46 91 1,049 $ 46,486 ° Control system maintenance reportl 2 456 912 46 91 1,049 $ 46,486 ° Emissions averaging reporte 8 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY): m 3,284 164 328 3,777 $ 167,390 TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR TEST ATTENDEDn = ( 1 person * 0 facility/ yr * 2 days/ facility * $ 50 per diem) + ($ 400/ round trip * 0 round trip/ yr): $ 0 TOTAL COST = TOTAL COST ( SALARY) + TRAVEL EXPENSES: $ 167,390 a Operations per year are equal to the number of operations per facility times the number of facilities. There are an estimated 212 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP. These 212 facilities include 166 facilities that must install control systems to comply with the NESHAP and 46 facilities that already have the required control systems. Assuming 19 new facilities built over the 26 TABLE 2b. ( continued)

first 5 years after the effective date ( including 6 oriented strand board, 5 medium density fiberboard, 4 particleboard, and 4 laminated veneer lumber facilities), approximately 4 new facilities will be built each year.

b Labor cost assumes a rate of $ 44.75/ hour for technical labor, $ 73.97/ hour for management labor, and $ 25.23/ hour for clerical labor.

c Assumes all facilities will conduct initial performance tests, and EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of the initial tests.

d Assumes 5 percent of facilities will repeat the performance tests, and EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of the repeat tests.

e Assumes no existing facilities will choose to use the emissions averaging option because all facilities assumed to install control systems; new facilities are not allowed to use emissions averaging.

f Assumes all facilities will submit a request for routine control device maintenance exemption.

g Assumes all facilities will conduct an initial performance test( s) and submit a notification of compliance status that includes the report of the performance test( s).

h Assumes 1 new facility per year with softwood veneer dryers will submit a notification of compliance status without performance tests.

i Assumes that the facilities' compliance date is in the first half of the year, so facilities will submit one compliance report the first year that they start complying with the rule and two compliance reports the following years.

j Assumes 90 percent of facilities will have no deviations, and 10 percent will have deviations.

k Assumes all facilities will report actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that are consistent with the SSMP.

l Assumes all facilities will submit a description of the control device maintenance performed.

m The burden and cost are equal to the totals added down each column.

n Tests attended include no initial performance tests and no repeat performance tests, for a total of 0 tests attended. 27 TABLE 2c. AGENCY BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS SIXTH YEAR FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE Activity A EPA hours per operation B Operations per yeara C Technical person hours per year ( C = A * B) D Management person hours per year ( D = C * 0.05) E Clerical personhours per year ( E = C * 0.1) F Total person hours per year ( F = C + D + E) G Labor cost,

$ b 1. Attend Initial Performance Testc 40 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 2. Attend Repeat Performance Testd 40 1 40 2 4 46 $ 2,039 3. Litigation N/ A 4. Report Review A. Review of Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 B. Review of Notification of Anticipated Startup 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 C. Review of Notification of Actual Startup 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 D. Review of Notification of Applicability of Standard 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 E. Review of Emissions Averaging Plane 40 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 F. Review of Request for Routine Control System Maintenance Exemptionf 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 G. Review of Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 H. Review of Notification of Compliance Status ° With performance testg 40 4 160 8 16 184 $ 8,155 ° Without performance testh 40 1 40 2 4 46 $ 2,039 I. Review of Initial Compliance Reporti ° No deviationsj 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 ° Deviationsj 8 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 ° Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reportk 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 ° Control system maintenance reportl 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 9 $ 408 ° Emissions averaging reporte 8 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 J. Review of Semi Annual Compliance Reporti ° No deviationsj 2 418 836 42 84 961 $ 42,612 ° Deviationsj 8 46 368 18 37 423 $ 18,758 ° Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reportk 2 464 928 46 93 1,067 $ 47,302 ° Control system maintenance reportl 2 464 928 46 93 1,067 $ 47,302 ° Emissions averaging reporte 8 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY): m 3,372 169 337 3,878 $ 171,876 TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR TEST ATTENDEDn = ( 1 person * 1 facility/ yr * 2 days/ facility * $ 50 per diem) + ($ 400/ round trip * 0 round trip/ yr): $ 100 TOTAL COST = TOTAL COST ( SALARY) + TRAVEL EXPENSES: $ 171,976 28 TABLE 2c. ( continued)

a Operations per year are equal to the number of operations per facility times the number of facilities. There are an estimated 212 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP. These 212 facilities include 166 facilities that must install control systems to comply with the NESHAP and 46 facilities that already have the required control systems. Assuming 19 new facilities built over the first 5 years after the effective date ( including 6 oriented strand board, 5 medium density fiberboard, 4 particleboard, and 4 laminated veneer lumber facilities), approximately 4 new facilities will be built each year.

b Labor cost assumes a rate of $ 44.75/ hour for technical labor, $ 73.97/ hour for management labor, and $ 25.23/ hour for clerical labor.

c Assumes all facilities will conduct initial performance tests, and EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of the initial tests.

d Assumes 5 percent of facilities will repeat the performance tests, that 5 repeat tests will be conducted on existing biofilters, and EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of the repeat tests.

e Assumes no existing facilities will choose to use the emissions averaging option because all facilities assumed to install control systems; new facilities are not allowed to use emissions averaging.

f Assumes all facilities will submit a request for routine control device maintenance exemption.

g Assumes all facilities will conduct an initial performance test( s) and submit a notification of compliance status that includes the report of the performance test( s).

h Assumes 1 new facility per year with softwood veneer dryers will submit a notification of compliance status without performance tests.

i Assumes that the facilities' compliance date is in the first half of the year, so facilities will submit one compliance report the first year that they start complying with the rule and two compliance reports the following years.

j Assumes 90 percent of facilities will have no deviations, and 10 percent will have deviations.

k Assumes all facilities will report actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that are consistent with the SSMP.

l Assumes all facilities will submit a description of the control device maintenance performed.

m The burden and cost are equal to the totals added down each column.

n Tests attended include no initial performance tests and no repeat performance tests, for a total of 0 tests attended. 29 TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS Total burden,

hours Total costs,

$

Table 1a ( one time activities in fourth year) 81,001 $ 4,325,052 Table 1b ( recurrent activities in fourth year) 76,835 $ 4,102,585 Table 1c ( one time activities in fifth year) 1,394 $ 74,422 Table 1d ( recurrent activities in fifth year) 88,506 $ 4,725,775 Table 1e ( one time activities in sixth year) 1,394 $ 74,422 Table 1f ( recurrent activities in sixth year) 90,021 $ 4,806,644 Total 339,151 $ 18,108,899 Bottom line annual burden 113,050 $ 6,036,300 30 TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF AGENCY BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS Total burden,

hours Total costs,

$

Table 2a ( fourth year) 24,306 $ 1,088,834 Table 2b ( fifth year) 3,777 $ 167,390 Table 2c ( sixth year) 3,878 $ 171,976 Total 31,961 $ 1,428,200 Bottom line annual burden 10,654 $ 476,067


Subject: Telephone conversation Date: 9 12 03 Participants: Lynn Hutchinson, USEPA Michael Formica, U. S. Chamber of Commerce Mr. Formica called to inquire about EPA's plans to move forward with any additional rulemaking on the issue of RMRR. Specifically he wondered whether we would be finalizing the allowance approach or proposing alternatives. I indicated that all of these options are under discussion. We received a substantial number of comments on the allowance approach. We also received suggestions on other approaches which would either build upon or be a substitute for the allowance approach. The Agency has not decided how to proceed but I expect a decision within the next 3 months.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 213 (Friday, November 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55234-55235]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24050]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of the Federal Aviation Administration
Record of Decision and Adoption of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Modernization and Enhancement of Ranges, Airspace, and
Training Areas in the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex in Alaska, for
the Fox 3 Military Operations Area (MOA) Expansion and Paxon/Delta 5
MOA Establishment and Night Joint Training, Extending MOA Times of Use
for the United States Air Force

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
decision to adopt the United States Departments of the Army (Army) and
Air Force's (USAF) Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Modernization and Enhancement of Ranges, Airspace, and Training Areas
in the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC) in Alaska, EIS No.
20130181. In accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA''), the Council on Environmental Quality's
(``CEQ'') regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and
other applicable authorities, including The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, paragraph 8-2, and FAA Order JO 7400.2K, ``Procedures for
Handling Airspace Matters,'' paragraph 32-2-3, the FAA has conducted an
independent review and evaluation of the Army and the USAF's Final EIS
for Modernization and Enhancement of Ranges, Airspace, and Training
Areas in the JPARC in Alaska, dated June 2013. As a cooperating agency
with responsibility for approving special use airspace (SUA) under 49
U.S.C. 40103(b)(3)(A), the FAA provided subject matter expertise and
coordinated with the USAF and Army during the environmental review
process, including preparation of the Draft EIS and the Final EIS.
Based on its independent review and evaluation, the FAA has determined
the Final EIS, including its supporting documentation, as incorporated
by reference, and other supporting documentation incorporated by
reference for FAA's Written Re-Evaluation and Adoption of the Final EIS
adequately assesses and discloses the environmental impacts of the for
Modernization and Enhancement of Ranges, Airspace, and Training Areas
in the JPARC in Alaska. FAA is authorized to adopt the Final EIS under
40 CFR 1506.3, Adoption. Accordingly, the FAA adopts the Final EIS, and
takes full responsibility for the scope and content that addresses the
proposed changes to SUA for JPARC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Miller, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In March 2012, in accordance with NEPA and its implementing
regulations, the USAF and Army released a Draft EIS. The Draft EIS
presented the potential environmental consequences of the USAF and
Army's proposal to modernize and enhance JPARC ranges by analyzing the
military training activities at JPARC, Alaska. As a result of the FAA
aeronautical review process, and public, agency, and tribal comments
during the 111-day public comment period on the Draft EIS, the USAF,
FAA, other federal and state agencies, and tribal governments have
consulted to mitigate concerns while continuing to meet national
defense training requirements. The USAF and Army are the proponents for
the JPARC Modernization and were the lead agencies for the preparation
of the Final EIS, which was issued in June 2013. The FAA is a
cooperating agency responsible for approving SUA as defined in 40 CFR
1508.5.
    The FAA has independently evaluated the JPARC Final EIS and the
accompanying SUA proposals. FAA found that the USAF SUA proposals are
ripe for a decision while the Army SUA proposals are currently still
undergoing aeronautical processing and development. Therefore, the
scope and extent of FAA's Record of Decision (ROD) is only for the USAF
SUA proposals.
    The USAF and Army issued one ROD. The ROD lists the Army and USAF
actions and decisions separately. The ROD includes an Army Decision,
signed July 30, 2013, and an USAF Decision signed August 6, 2013. The
USAF selected the preferred alternatives for the Fox 3 MOA Expansion
and New Paxon MOA, Realistic Live Ordnance Delivery (RLOD), and Night
Joint Training (NJT). The Army/USAF ROD also lists mitigation measures
by agency and specific action. The USAF has since decided they do not
currently plan to implement RLOD, and they have not submitted an
aeronautical proposal for the expansion of R-2202 necessary for RLOD.

Implementation

    After evaluating the public comments received, the aeronautical
studies, and the environmental analysis, the FAA is expanding the Fox 3
Military Operations Area (MOA), establishing the Paxon and Delta 5
MOAs, and extending the times of use of the existing JPARC MOAs for
NJT.
    FAA circularized the proposed actions from February 24, 2105
through May 10, 2015. After the conclusion of the circularization
comment period and FAA's Aeronautical Study, the FAA changed the name
of Paxon B MOA to Delta 5 MOA and deleted the Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
Corridor in the interest of safety. The name change and the elimination
of the VFR Corridor mitigation do not change the SUA request or the
analysis done in the Final EIS and the Aeronautical Study. The
modification did not change the area of analysis; therefore, the
environmental and aeronautical analyses are still valid. The legal
descriptions for the JPARC MOAs will be published in the National
Flight Data Digest with a November 8, 2018 effective date. The August
29, 2018 Written Re-Evaluation/Adoption/ROD is available on the FAA
website and can be viewed at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/environmental_issues/.

Right of Appeal

    The Written Re-evaluation, Adoption, and ROD for the changes to the
JPARC MOAs constitutes a final order of the FAA Administrator and is
subject to exclusive judicial review under 49 U.S.C. 46110 by the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the person contesting
the decision resides or has its principal place of business. Any party
having substantial interest in this order may apply for review of the
decision by filing a petition for review in the appropriate U.S. Court
of Appeals no later than 60 days after the date of this notice in
accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 46110.

    Issued in Des Moines, WA on October 26, 2018.
Shawn Kozica,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-24050 Filed 11-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34143-34144]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP17-66-001 and CP17-67-001]

Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC; Notice of Availability of
the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Plaquemines LNG Amendment
Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Plaquemines LNG Amendment (Amendment), proposed by Venture Global
Plaquemines LNG, LLC (Plaquemines LNG) in the above referenced docket.
    Plaquemines LNG proposes to increase the peak workforce from its
current 3,600 personnel up to 6,000 personnel per day, increase traffic
volumes, and implement a 24-hours-per-day, 7-days-per-week construction
schedule for select activities during the remaining construction period
at the Plaquemines LNG Terminal site in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
In addition, Plaquemines LNG is seeking approval for an additional 50-
acre parking/laydown area referred to as the State Highway (SH) 23
Yard. Plaquemines LNG anticipates completing the Plaquemines LNG and
Gator Express Pipeline Project (Plaquemines LNG Project) in 2025.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
Amendment in accordance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval
of

the proposed Amendment, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The EA incorporates by reference the Commission staff's May 2019
Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in Docket Nos. CP17-66-000
and CP17-67-000 for the Plaquemines LNG Project, and the Commission's
findings and conclusions in its September 30, 2019 Order. The EA
addresses the potential environmental effects of the Amendment on water
and wetlands resources, vegetation and wildlife, socioeconomics,
environmental justice, visual resources, cultural resources, air
quality, and noise. The EA also addresses cumulative impacts, including
climate change, and alternatives to the proposed action.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability for the
EA to Federal, State, and local government representatives and
agencies; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners; and
other interested individuals and groups. The EA is only available in
electronic format. It may be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's
website (www.ferc.gov), on the natural gas environmental documents page
(https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In addition, the EA may be accessed by using
the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search), select ``General Search''
and enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field (i.e. CP17-
66 or CP17-67). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's
independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to
consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should
focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental
effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to
consider your comments prior to making its decision on this Amendment,
it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 20, 2023.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address using the U.S. Postal Service. Be sure to
reference the project docket numbers (CP17-66-001and CP17-67-001) with
your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent through carriers other than the U.S. Postal Service
must be sent to 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852 for
processing.
    Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status,
but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of
the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the
timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any
person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion
to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and
(d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived.
Motions to intervene are more fully described at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/ferc-online/how-guides.
    Additional information about the Plaquemines LNG Amendment is
available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866)
208-FERC, or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using eLibrary. The
eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents
issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription, which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: May 19, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11237 Filed 5-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Date:	June 29, 2016

To:	Brenda Shine, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

From:	Leslie Pearce and Jeff Coburn

Subject:	Meeting Record for June 23, 2016 meeting between
Representatives of GPA Midstream Association and Representatives of
OAQPS (U.S. EPA)

On June 23, 2016, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and their contractor (RTI International) participated in a
meeting with representatives of the GPA Midstream Association. The names
and affiliations of the participants are included in Attachment 1. The
purpose of the meeting was to discuss the existing source oil and gas
information collection request (ICR) as it pertains to the gathering and
boosting and gas processing industry segments.

GPA Midstream Association discussed a number of issues regarding the
information collection request and asked for guidance from the EPA on
how best to document and submit comments to ensure their concerns are
taken into consideration. These issues included:

Part 1 - Operator Survey for Onshore Natural Gas and Petroleum
Production Facilities:

Requested confirmation that gathering and boosting (G&B) facilities are
not expected to complete the Part 1 survey. They also provided feedback
that the point of transfer between onshore natural gas and oil producers
and gathering and boosting facilities would typically be considered the
meter where the commodity leaves the wellhead and enters gathering
lines. They added that gathering and boosting facilities do not
typically take custody of the commodity, but rather charge fees for
transporting and treating the gas or oil. The EPA confirmed that G&B
facilities are not required to complete the Part 1 survey.

Part 2 - Detailed Facility Survey:

Count of Gathering and Boosting Facilities: They inquired where the
count of G&B facilities was sourced, as they did not think these types
of facilities are all subject to the requirements of the Pipeline
Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration (PHMSA) as listed in the
supporting statement. The EPA noted that some of the count was estimated
based on the number of gathering and boosting compressors as provided by
EPA personnel responsible for the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (GHG) and Sinks report. EPA inquired whether or not the trade
organization had a complete list of gathering and boosting facilities.
GPA Midstream Association stated that they do not have a comprehensive
list, but stated that some of the larger G&B facilities are subject to
the mandatory GHG Reporting Program requirements for stationary
combustion sources (40 CFR part 98 subpart C) and thus some facility
information could be sourced from there. Additionally, they suggested
querying state databases for permitted and registered facilities as well
as state emission inventory reporting programs for facility contact
information. The noted that the information available from the states
vary and some key states, such as Texas, do not require reporting of G&B
facilities. They also suggested that the EPA’s National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) could be queried for SIC codes 1311 or 1389 to get a
list of G&B facilities included in the inventory. They also suggested
that facilities could participate in a self-reporting exercise and
provide the EPA with facility contacts if solicited to do so. They also
noted that most gathering and boosting facilities are owned and operated
by the same company operating the processing plant, so it may be
possible to survey processing facilities to collect information on the
gathering and boosting facilities associated with (i.e., upstream of)
the processing plant. Finally, they suggested that the EPA delay the
overall schedule for the Part 2 survey until after G&B facilities have
reported to the GHGRP or after EPA conducted a similar Part 1 survey to
identify individual G&B facilities.

Dehydrators: GPA Midstream Association asked why dehydrators were
included in the ICR as they were not mentioned in the list of sources to
be included in the April 2016 webinar. They stated that these sources
are heavily regulated by NESHAP HH/HHH for major and area sources.
Additionally, they statement that SO2 removal units are regulated by
NSPS LLL which got included in the NSPS OOOO. They also stated that the
emission points associated with dehydrators are the flash tank and
regenerator vents and asked why questions were not more pointed with
respect to these emission points. Further, they asked the EPA if they
could submit a GLYCalc™ run or simply the emissions from these sources
rather than the requested process information. The EPA explained that
the process information has been requested so they have the ability to
independently and consistently perform emissions calculations for all
facilities as well as identify gaps in regulatory requirements and
existing programs.

Submitting comments: GPA Midstream Association asked the EPA how the
fraction of sources at a given facility in Table 2 of the supporting
statement were derived. The EPA explained that the numbers of pieces of
equipment in Table 2 were taken from information the EPA’s white
paper, engineering estimates, and comments from other EPA groups. GPA
Midstream Association asked if there was a recommended format or
required level of detail when providing comments on the values in Table
2. The EPA suggested providing the suggested revisions and justification
of how the revised estimates were developed in the submitted comments.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) Methodology: GPA Midstream
Associated inquired why the CARB Method was specifically chosen for
storage tank testing. The EPA explained that the CARB Method was
selected because it has been used in various consent decree settlements
and it is designed for pressurized tank samples. GPA Midstream
Association stated that the cost estimate in the supporting statement
was too low for facilities outside of California, and labs they
contacted were estimating $2,000 per test. GPA Midstream Association
also stated that the CARB Method was updated in February of 2016 and
requested that the EPA confirm which version of the method should be
used. GPA Midstream Association also suggested that there are several
other ways to perform the same types of sampling including GPA methods
(2186, 2174, 2103, and 2286), modeling using ProMax® to estimate
emissions, and other methods submitted as part of 114 requests to EPA
Region 3. The EPA suggested that GPA Midstream Association include their
preferred test method(s) in their comments, but stated that consistency
in results and the ability to quantitatively analyze the results in a
lab instead of modeling emission results were important. GPA Midstream
Association also added that some separators are not equipped with
sampling ports to pull a pressurized liquid sample and that should be
included in the burden estimate. They also added that some facilities
that are not liquid rich (may depend on the time of year) may not be
able to generate a liquid sample, and this should be taken into
consideration.

Timing Concerns: GPA Midstream Association stated that additional time
should be provided to respond to the ICR as it coincides with numerous
other reporting obligations, and they had concerns about using the
e-GGRT system to collect the Part 2 information in such close proximity
to the GHGRP deadline.

Use of e-GGRT: GPA Midstream Association asked whether sandbox testing
of e-GGRT’s ICR portal would be provided. Additionally, they asked if
an XML schema would be provided as a means to provide submission of the
Part 2 data. Finally, they made a recommendation that facilities should
be able to perform registration for a batch of facilities rather than
the current one-by-one process the GHGRP uses.

Burden Estimate: GPA Midstream Association asked if the statistical
method described in the supporting statement would ensure that a
particular parent company would not be overly burdened with the number
of selected facilities for Part 2. The EPA explained that the purpose of
the utilizing the statistical sampling method is to ensure its
randomized and that they expect varied distribution of selected
facilities, but they would accept comment with recommendations on how to
ensure the distribution of selected facilities is appropriate.

Definitions: GPA Midstream Association recommended that the EPA adopt
the facility definition in part 52 of the CAA rather than what appears
to be a composite definition adopted from various parts of the Act. They
also recommended that the definition for pressure vessel be made
consistent with NSPS OOOO.

Miscellaneous:

GPA Midstream Association stated that the information sheet only
references natural gas driven pneumatic devices, but the pneumatics tab
requests information on air driven devices as well.

GPA Midstream Association suggested that the EPA would benefit from
requesting process flow diagrams.

GPA Midstream Association suggested providing a definition for control
device and suggested that some equipment such as vapor recovery units
are used for control, but are often considered part of the equipment.
Specific to vapor recovery units, they also requested clarification on
whether they should be included on the compressor tab.

GPA Midstream Association suggested that a document be added to the
docket with the values of the picklists in the Excel workbooks. They
also stated that the picklist for the type of feed for storage tanks
should be updated to remove exempted types of feed as detailed in the
Intro tab. They also added that adding an option for an enforceable
permit to the list of questions related to regulatory applicability for
the equipment.

Storage Tanks: GPA Midstream Association requested that a separate tab
be provided for tanks and separators rather than lumping together in one
tab. They added that there are no emissions from separators in the G&B
segment because they are simply process pass through units. They also
requested that a definition of atmospheric tank be provided.

Control Equipment: GPA Midstream Association suggested that there be a
link between the control equipment and the emission points on the
equipment tabs.

Blowdown: GPA Midstream Association inquired as to whether it is the
EPA’s intent to provide the same threshold exemption as the GHGRP.
They also requested clarification as to whether a pressure relief device
opening would be considered a blowdown or venting.

Attachment 1

Participants in June 23 2016, 2016 EPA/GPA Midstream Association Meeting

GPA Midstream Association Representatives

Claudio Galli

Laura Guthrie

Laura Higgins

Jaron Hill

Matt Hite

Gary Jackson

Ryan Perna

Melanie Roberts

Adrienne Sandoval

U.S. EPA Representatives

Angie Carey

Amy Hambrick

Jodi Howard

Brenda Shine

Jonathan Witt

RTI International (EPA Contractor)

Jeff Coburn

Leslie Pearce

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  5


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52329-52330]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21351]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9723-7]

Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement Under Section 122 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act for the Federal Creosote Superfund Site, Located in Manville,
Somerset County, NJ

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed administrative settlement and opportunity
for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') is
proposing to enter into an administrative settlement agreement
(``Settlement Agreement'') with Rustic Mall, LLC and Mr. Joseph Wilf
(the ``Settling Parties'') pursuant to Section 122 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''),
42 U.S.C. 9622. The Settlement Agreement provides for Settling Parties'
payment of certain response costs incurred at the Federal Creosote
Superfund Site located within the Borough of Manville, Somerset County,
New Jersey (``Site'').
    In accordance with Section 122(i) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i),
this notice is being published to inform the public of the proposed
Settlement Agreement and of the opportunity to comment. For thirty (30)
days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive
written comments relating to the proposed Settlement Agreement. EPA
will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its
consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement is
inappropriate, improper or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments
received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 2, 290
Broadway, 17th floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.

DATES: Comments must be provided by September 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the Federal Creosote Superfund
Site, EPA Docket No. CERCLA-02-2012-

2012 and should be sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Regional Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch, 290 Broadway--
17th Floor, New York, NY 10007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of the proposed administrative
settlement, as well as background information relating to the
settlement, may be obtained from Elizabeth La Blanc, Assistant Regional
Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 17th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York,
New York 10007-1866. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth La Blanc, Assistant Regional
Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 17th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York,
New York 10007-1866. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 8, 2012.
Walter Mugdan,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-21351 Filed 8-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


TASK TITLE:  Doctors of Chiropractic and the Merchant Mariner Medical Examination

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

The Coast Guard seeks the input of industry, via MEDMAC, on whether the agency should allow the merchant mariner medical examination to be conducted by doctors of chiropractic.

BACKGROUND:

Title 46 CFR10.302(b) requires that all merchant mariner medical examinations "be performed, witnessed, or reviewed by a licensed medical doctor, licensed physicians assistant, licensed nurse practitioner, or a designated medical examiner (DME)."  Members of professional chiropractic organizations have provided public comment at past MEDMAC meetings to request that the committee make recommendation to the Coast Guard to allow doctors of chiropractic to perform the merchant mariner medical examination. The agency has also received informal queries and formal petitions for rulemaking related to this issue in the past.  To date, MEDMAC has not taken up the issue as a formal task.
The general question at hand, is whether doctors of chiropractic have sufficient formal education and training to conduct merchant mariner medical examinations. The scope of practice for chiropractors varies by state, and in some states chiropractors are allowed to perform certain types of physical examination, including commercial driver exams. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) allows chiropractors to conduct physical examinations and issue medical certificates for commercial motor vehicle drivers, in states where their scope of practice allows.  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), however, does not allow chiropractors to conduct examinations for pilots seeking a medical certificate.
With varying scopes of practice allowed by states, and with different practices among the other modes of commercial transportation safety, the Coast Guard invited the Council on Chiropractic Education to speak at the Spring 2016 MEDMAC meeting to provide information specific to the minimum levels of education and training provided to students of accredited schools of chiropractic.

DESCRIPTION OF TASK/DELIVERABLES:
Provide recommendations/findings for the following:
   1. To what extent does the formal education and training of doctors of chiropractic prepare them to conduct the merchant mariner medical examination?
   2. Whether the formal training and education received by doctors of chiropractic sufficient to provide them the clinical acumen necessary to ensure that mariner applicants have no conditions that pose a significant risk of sudden incapacitation or debilitating complication.  Please explain your answer.
   3. How do the practices of FMCSA and FAA, with regard to use of chiropractors, affect your recommendation with regard to merchant mariner examinations?
   4. Are there significant similarities/differences between the merchant mariner medical examination, and the merchant mariner work environment that should be taken into consideration in deciding whether doctors of chiropractic should be allowed to perform the merchant mariner medical examination? Please discuss.
   5. Whether the Coast Guard should undertake a rulemaking project to allow merchant mariner medical examinations to be performed by doctors of chiropractic.  Please explain your recommendation.

Coast Guard technical representative: Dr Adrienne Buggs.

                              Annex to Task 16-21

                        MISSION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
     Doctors of Chiropractic and the Merchant Mariner Medical Examination
                                       .
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee (MEDMAC) hereby establishes a standing Working Group to provide recommendations to the Coast Guard on Doctors of Chiropractic conducting merchant mariner medical examinations.

The Working Group shall make recommendations to the MEDMAC for the purpose of providing guidance to the Coast Guard on whether Doctors of Chiropractic should conduct merchant mariner medical examinations.

The Working Group shall respond to specific task assignments requested by the Coast Guard or the Chair of the MEDMAC.

The Working Group shall make recommendations to the MEDMAC in the form of specific written reports.

In carrying out its work the following guiding principles apply:

   1. The Working Group shall be chaired by one member of MEDMAC.
   2. The Working Group may have participation from the public and other interested parties.
   3. Meetings of the Working Group shall occur at regular meetings of the MEDMAC at a minimum.  Additional meetings may be called by the Working Group Chair or at the request of the MEDMAC Chair of the Coast Guard.  All meetings of the Working Group will be announced in the Federal Register.
   4. Meetings of the Working Group should be guided by Roberts Rules of Order and the Working Group Chairman shall organize and conduct the meetings.  In the absence of the Chairman, another MEDMAC member from the Working Group shall act as Working Group Chair.
   5. The Working Group shall recognize the work and recommendations from previous Working Group work.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 135 (Monday, July 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32644-32646]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14746]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52, 60, and 61

[Region 4; FRL-9964-36-Region 4]

Address and Agency Name Changes for Region 4 State and Local
Agencies; Technical Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting the
addresses and agencies names for EPA Region 4 State and local agencies
in EPA regulations. The jurisdiction of EPA Region 4 includes the
States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. Certain EPA air pollution
control regulations require submittal of notifications, reports and
other documents to the appropriate authorized State or local agency.
This technical amendment updates and corrects agency names and the
addresses for submitting such information to the EPA Region 4 State and
local agency offices.

DATES: This rule is effective July 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Sheckler's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. She can
also be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA is amending its regulations in 40 CFR parts 52, 60 and 61 to
reflect changes in the addresses for the Kentucky Division for Air
Quality, and the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District in
Kentucky; the Mecklenburg County Air Quality Land Use and Environmental
Services Agency, and Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency
in North Carolina; and, the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation and the Nashville Metro Public Health Department Pollution
Control Division in Tennessee. EPA is also revising the agency name for
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality. This technical amendment merely
updates and corrects the addresses for the state and local agencies,
and a name change for one of the state agencies.
    EPA has determined that this rule falls under the ``good cause''
exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes agencies to
dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows
an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the
30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Under
section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where such
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Public comment is ``unnecessary'' and ``contrary to the
public interest'' since the addresses for the state and local agencies
have changed and immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by
updating citations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's finding that providing notice and an opportunity for
comment before promulgation of the amendments in this final action
is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest
also applies for purposes of section 808(2) of the Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 808(d), as discussed in section II of this
preamble.

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

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule implements technical amendments to 40 CFR parts 52,
60 and 61 to reflect a change in the address for the state and local
agencies, and a name change for one of the state agencies. It does not
otherwise impose or amend any requirements. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the States of Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee, and EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments
or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 808 of the CRA allows the issuing
agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the
CRA, if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public
procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement (5
U.S.C. 808(2)). As stated earlier, EPA has made such a good cause
finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective
date of July 17, 2017. EPA will submit a report containing this rule
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Aluminum, Ammonium sulfate plants, Batteries,
Beverages, Carbon monoxide, Cement industry, Chemicals, Coal, Copper,
Dry Cleaners, Electric power plants, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Gasoline,
Glass and glass products, Grains, Graphic arts industry, Heaters,
Household appliances, Insulation, Intergovernmental relations, Iron,
Labeling, Lead, Lime, Metallic and nonmetallic mineral processing
plants, Metals, Motor Vehicles, Natural gas, Nitric acid plants,
Nitrogen dioxide, Paper and paper products industry, Particulate
matter, Paving and roofing materials, Petroleum, Phosphate, Plastics
materials and synthetics, Polymers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sewage disposal, Steel, sulfur oxides, Sulfuric acid
plants, Tires, Urethane, Vinyl, Volatile organic compounds, Waste
treatment and disposal, Zinc.

40 CFR Part 61

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Arsenic, Asbestos,
Benzene, Beryllium, Hazardous substances, Mercury, Radionuclides,
Radon, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uranium, Vinyl
chloride.

    Dated: June 14, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR parts 52, 60 and 61 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. Section 52.931 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.931  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (d) All applications and other information required pursuant to
Sec.  52.21 from sources located in the Commonwealth of Kentucky shall
be submitted to the appropriate state or local agency for which the
source is located, rather than to EPA's Region 4 office: Kentucky
Department for Environmental Protection, Division for Air Quality, 300
Sower Boulevard, 2nd Floor, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601; or Louisville
Metro Air Pollution Control District, 701 W. Ormsby Ave., Suite 303,
Louisville, Kentucky 40203.

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
3. Section 52.1778 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1778  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (c) All applications and other information required pursuant to
Sec.  52.21 from sources located in the State of North Carolina shall
be submitted to the appropriate state or local agency for which the
source is located, rather than to EPA's Region 4 office: North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 1641 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641; Forsyth County
Office of Environmental Assistance and Protection, 201 North Chestnut
Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101-4120; Mecklenburg County
Land Use and Environmental Services Agency,

Air Quality, 2145 Suttle Avenue, Charlotte, North Carolina 28208; or
Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency, 125 S. Lexington
Ave., Suite 101, Asheville, North Carolina 28801-3661.

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
4. Section 52.2233 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2233  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (c) All applications and other information required pursuant to
Sec.  52.21 from sources located in the State of Tennessee shall be
submitted to the appropriate state or local agency for which the source
is located, rather than to EPA's Region 4 office: Tennessee Department
of Environment and Conservation, Division of Air Pollution Control,
William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 15th
Floor, Nashville, Tennessee 37243; Knox County Air Quality Management--
Department of Public Health, 140 Dameron Avenue, Knoxville, Tennessee
37917; Metro Public Health Department, Pollution Control Division, 2500
Charlotte Ave., Nashville, Tennessee 37209; Chattanooga-Hamilton County
Air Pollution Control Bureau, 6125 Preservation Drive, Chattanooga,
Tennessee 37416; or Shelby County Health Department, Pollution Control
Section, 814 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38105.

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
5. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
6. Section 60.4 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(A) through (EEE) as paragraphs (b)(1)
through (57).
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(19), (35), and (44) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.4  Address.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (19) Commonwealth of Kentucky: Kentucky Department for
Environmental Protection, Division for Air Quality, 300 Sower
Boulevard, 2nd Floor, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 or local agency,
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, 701 W. Ormsby Ave.,
Suite 303, Louisville, Kentucky 40203.
* * * * *
    (35) State of North Carolina: North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 1641 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 or local agencies, Forsyth
County Office of Environmental Assistance and Protection, 201 North
Chestnut Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101-4120; Mecklenburg
County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency, Air Quality, 2145
Suttle Avenue, Charlotte, North Carolina 28208; Western North Carolina
Regional Air Quality Agency, 125 S. Lexington Ave., Suite 101,
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-3661.
* * * * *
    (44) State of Tennessee: Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, Division of Air Pollution Control, William R. Snodgrass
Tennessee Tower, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 15th Floor, Nashville,
Tennessee 37243, or local agencies, Knox County Air Quality
Management--Department of Public Health, 140 Dameron Avenue, Knoxville,
Tennessee 37917; Metro Public Health Department, Pollution Control
Division, 2500 Charlotte Ave., Nashville, Tennessee 37209; Chattanooga-
Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau, 6125 Preservation Drive,
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37416; Shelby County Health Department,
Pollution Control Section, 814 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee
38105.
* * * * *

PART 61--NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

0
7. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
8. Section 61.04 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(A) through (EEE) as paragraphs (b)(1)
through (57).
0
b. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(19), (35), and (44) to
read as follows:

Sec.  61.04  Address.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (19) Commonwealth of Kentucky: Kentucky Department for
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 300 Sower Boulevard,
2nd Floor, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 or local agency, Louisville Metro
Air Pollution Control District, 701 W. Ormsby Ave. Suite 303,
Louisville, Kentucky 40203.
* * * * *
    (35) State of North Carolina: North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 1641 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 or local agencies, Forsyth
County Office of Environmental Assistance and Protection, 201 North
Chestnut Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101-4120; Mecklenburg
County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency, Air Quality, 2145
Suttle Avenue, Charlotte, North Carolina 28208; Western North Carolina
Regional Air Quality Agency, 125 S. Lexington Ave., Suite 101,
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-3661.
* * * * *
    (44) State of Tennessee: Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, Division of Air Pollution Control, William R. Snodgrass
Tennessee Tower, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 15th Floor, Nashville,
Tennessee 37243, or local agencies, Knox County Air Quality
Management--Department of Public Health, 140 Dameron Avenue, Knoxville,
Tennessee 37917; Metro Public Health Department, Pollution Control
Division, 2500 Charlotte Ave., Nashville, Tennessee 37209; Chattanooga-
Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau, 6125 Preservation Drive,
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37416; Shelby County Health Department,
Pollution Control Section, 814 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee
38105.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-14746 Filed 7-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P