[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 212 (Monday, November 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65280-65282]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26011]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73451; File No. SR-ICC-2014-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Revise ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery
Policies and Procedures

October 28, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 17, 2014, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by ICC. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the
ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures to incorporate
enhancements to its price discovery process. This revision does not
require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (``Rules'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

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

    ICC proposes revising the ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies
and Procedures to incorporate enhancements to its price discovery
process.
    ICC believes such revisions will facilitate the prompt and accurate

clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative
agreements, contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible.
The proposed revisions are described in detail as follows.
    ICC currently utilizes a ``cross and lock'' algorithm as part of
its price discovery process. Under this algorithm, bids and offers
derived from Clearing Participant submissions are matched by sorting
them from highest to lowest and lowest to highest levels, respectively.
This sorting process pairs the CP submitting the highest bid price with
the CP submitting the lowest offer price, the CP submitting the second
highest bid price with the CP submitting the second-lowest offer price,
and so on. The algorithm then identifies crossed and/or locked markets.
Crossed markets are the Clearing Participant pairs generated by the
sorting and ranking process for which the bid price of one Clearing
Participant is above the offer price of the matched Clearing
Participant. The algorithm identifies locked markets, where the bid and
the offer are equal, in a similar fashion. The mid-point of the first
non-crossed, non-locked matched market is the final end-of-day level
(with additional steps taken to remove off-market submissions from
influencing the final level). This process captures the market dynamics
of trading; however, final pricing levels are ultimately determined by
a single bid and a single offer, which results in the ability for one
submission to influence the outcome.
    ICC proposes enhancements to its methodology to improve the
consistency of prices and reduce the sensitivity of the final level to
a single Clearing Participant's submission. Under the new ``cross and
lock'' methodology, the average of the mid-points of all non-crossed,
non-locked matched markets that are less than or equal to one bid-offer
width is used as the final level (with additional steps taken to remove
off-market submissions from influencing the final level). As a result,
prices are less sensitive to outlying submissions. ICC also proposes
additional language in the ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and
Procedures to clarify existing policies and practices, including, but
not limited to, language to clarify the existing pricing methodology's
treatment of identical crossed or locked matched market bids or
offers.\3\ There are no changes to ICC's Rules as a result of these
enhancements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to a teleconference with ICC's in-house counsel on
October 27, 2014, staff in the Division of Trading and Markets has
added this sentence to more completely describe the proposed textual
changes as a result of this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \4\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. ICC believes that the proposed rule changes
are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, to Section
17(A)(b)(3)(F),\5\ because ICC believes that the proposed rule changes
will assure the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and
transactions, as the proposed revisions enhance ICC's price discovery
process, resulting in more consistent day-over-day end-of-day levels.
As such, the proposed changes are designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,
derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions within the meaning
of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \6\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The enhancements to ICC's
price discovery process apply uniformly across all market participants.
Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes impose any
burden on competition that is inappropriate 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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2014-17 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-ICC-2014-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit
and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    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-ICC-2014-17 and should be
submitted on or before November 24, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26011 Filed 10-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 172 (Thursday, September 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55039-55040]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19518]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-10830; 34-89713; File No. 265-28]

Investor Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory
Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice
that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit
written statements to the Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 24, 2020 from
10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received
on or before September 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be conducted by remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F St NE, Washington, DC 20549. The
meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.
Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Statements

    [ssquf] Use the Commission's internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
    [ssquf] Send an email message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File No. 265-28 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

    [ssquf] Send paper statements to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. 265-28. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method.
    Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1503,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel,
Office of the Investor Advocate, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public,
except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an
administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special
accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the
contact person listed in the section above entitled FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: Welcome remarks; approval of
previous meeting minutes; a panel discussion

regarding self-directed IRAs; a panel discussion regarding minority
community investor inclusion; a discussion of a recommendation to
restate and amend the by-laws of the Committee; subcommittee reports;
and a non-public administrative session.

    Dated: August 31, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19518 Filed 9-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 67843]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27606]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension: Form T-1; OMB Control No. 3235-0110, SEC File No. 270-121.

    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.
    Form T-1 (17 CFR 269.1) is a statement of eligibility and
qualification under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 77aaa et
seq.) of a corporation designated to act as a trustee under an
indenture. The information is used to determine whether the corporation
is qualified to serve as a trustee. Form T-1 is filed on occasion. The
information required by Form T-1 is mandatory. This information is
publicly available on EDGAR. Form T-1 takes approximately 15 hours per
response to prepare and is filed by approximately 13 respondents. We
estimate that 25% of the 15 hours (4 hours) is prepared by the company
for a total annual reporting burden of 52 hours (4 hours per response x
13 responses).
    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.
Written comments regarding the above information should be directed to
the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities
and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: November 7, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27606 Filed 11-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10387-10390]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4060]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 302

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0965; FRL-9635-9]

Designation of Hazardous Substances; Designation, Reportable
Quantities, and Notification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to reinstate the maximum
observed constituent concentrations for several listed hazardous wastes
that were inadvertently removed from the regulations by a November 8,
2000 final rule.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 23, 2012 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 23, 2012. If EPA receives
adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2011-0965, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Superfund Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0965. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2011-0965. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0965
docket. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Superfund Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP and Oil Information Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TDD<PHONE_NUMBER> (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TDD<PHONE_NUMBER>. For more
detailed information on specific aspects of this direct final rule,
contact Lynn Beasley at<PHONE_NUMBER> (beasley.lynn@epa.gov), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0002, Mail Code 5104A.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because
we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse
comment. This action merely reinstates the maximum observed constituent
concentrations for several listed hazardous wastes that were
inadvertently removed from regulations by a November 8, 2000 final
rule. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register, we are also publishing a separate proposed rule to reinstate
these same maximum observed constituent concentrations for several
listed hazardous wastes that were inadvertently removed from the
regulations if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule.
We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect until EPA addresses all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Does this action apply to me?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Type of entity                Examples of affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Agencies..................  National Response Center and any
                                     Federal agency that may release or
                                     respond to releases of hazardous
                                     substances.

State and Local Governments.......  State Emergency Response
                                     Commissions, and Local Emergency
                                     Planning Committees.
Responsible Parties...............  Those entities responsible for the
                                     release of a hazardous substance
                                     from a vessel or facility. Those
                                     entities with an interest in the
                                     substances that were inadvertently
                                     removed from the table of maximum
                                     observed constituent concentrations
                                     for listed hazardous wastes K169,
                                     K170, K171, and K172 in 40 CFR
                                     302.6(b)(1)(iii).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

A. Submitting CBI

    Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov
or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2.

B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

IV. What does this amendment do?

    This direct final rule reinstates the maximum observed constituent
concentrations for listed hazardous wastes K169, K170, K171, and K172
to the table found in 40 CFR 302.6(b)(1)(iii). A November 8, 2000 final
rule (Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Chlorinated Aliphatics Production Wastes; Land
Disposal Restrictions for Newly Identified Wastes; CERCLA Hazardous
Substance Designation and Reportable Quantities; Final Rule)
inadvertently removed the maximum observed constituent concentrations
for those listed hazardous wastes from the table in that section when
it was amended to include the maximum observed constituent
concentrations for listed hazardous wastes K174 and K175. (See 65 FR
67132.) The maximum observed constituent concentrations were included
in the 40 CFR 302.6 regulations to allow generators, transporters, and
disposal facilities handling these hazardous wastes to calculate
reportable quantities (RQs) using the mixture rule \1\ developed in
connection with the Clean Water Act section 311 regulations. The listed
hazardous wastes K169, K170, K171, and K172 and their respective RQs
are included in Table 302.4--List of Hazardous Substances and
Reportable Quantities and Appendix A to section 302.4--Sequential CAS
Registry Number List of CERCLA Hazardous Substances of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. However, the aforementioned Table 302.4
and Appendix A do not contain the maximum observed constituent
concentrations. Section 302.6 is the only source of these maximum
observed constituent concentrations contained in 40 CFR 302--
Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 44 FR 50767, Aug. 29, 1979, Final Rulemaking; Water
Programs; Determination of Reportable Quantities for Hazardous
Substances; and 50 FR 13463, Apr. 4, 1985, Final rule; Notification
Requirements; Reportable Quantity Adjustments. Discharges of
mixtures and solutions are subject to these regulations only where a
component hazardous substance of the mixture or solution is
discharged in a quantity equal to or greater than its reportable
quantity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. How were the maximum observed constituent concentrations
inadvertently removed?

    The inadvertent removal of the maximum observed constituent
concentrations for K169, K170, K171, and K172 from Sec.  302.6 was the
result of a formatting error. On November 8, 2000, EPA issued a final
rule (65 FR 67132) in the Federal Register that amended 40 CFR
302.6(b)(1)(iii) by adding entries K174 and K175 to an existing table
of maximum observed constituent concentrations for listed hazardous
wastes K169, K170, K171, and K172. The Federal Register final rule did
not contain the proper signal (5 asterisks) to the Office of the
Federal Register that would cause the addition of entries K174 and K175
to the existing table and instead replaced the existing table with a
table that only included entries for K174 and K175. The missing signal
(5 asterisks) was a formatting error. The proper signal (5 asterisks)
was contained in the proposed rule that was published on August 25,
1999. (See 64 FR 46539.)
    On November 14, 2011, Artisan EHS Consulting, LLC (Artisan EHS)
submitted a request for correction of information under the Data
Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act),\2\ as
implemented through the Office of Management and Budget \3\ and the
EPA.4 5 EPA confirmed the accuracy

of the Artisan EHS' request which led to this direct final rule.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 5(a) of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-554; 44
U.S.C. 3516 (notes).
    \3\ Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality,
Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by
Federal Agencies, 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002).
    \4\ Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality,
Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity, of Information Disseminated by
the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/260R-02-008 (October 2002).
    \5\ The letter from Artisan EHS can be found in the docket for
this final rule, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0965.
    \6\ In their letter, Artisan EHS also pointed out a
typographical error--that is, at the end of 40 CFR 302.6 there is an
erroneous reference--`65 FR 87132, Nov. 8, 2001' should read `65 FR
67132, Nov. 8, 2000. Typographical errors are corrected by the
Office of the Federal Register. On November 23, 2011, EPA requested
that the Office of Federal Register change the reference
accordingly--that change was made and is available to view at:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/index.tpl;
follow the links to 40 CFR 302.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This direct final action does not impose any new information
collection burden. The amendments in this direct final rule simply
reinstates the maximum observed constituent concentrations for several
listed hazardous wastes that were inadvertently removed from the
regulations when they were amended to include the maximum observed
constituent concentrations for other newly listed hazardous wastes in a
November 8, 2000 final rule. This direct final rule does not change any
reporting requirements in the general provisions. However, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing subparts of 40 CFR
302 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act , 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0046. The OMB
control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR
part 9. Subparts that will be added through separate rulemakings will
document the respective information collection requirements in their
own ICR documents.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The direct
final rule simply reinstates the maximum observed constituent
concentrations for several listed hazardous wastes that were
inadvertently removed from the regulations when they were amended to
include the maximum observed constituent concentrations for other newly
listed hazardous wastes in a November 8, 2000 final rule. The direct
final rule does not itself add any additional subparts or requirements.
The direct final rule will not impose any new requirements on small
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. The amendments in this direct
final rule reinstate the maximum observed constituent concentrations
for several listed hazardous wastes that were inadvertently removed
from the regulations when they were amended to include the maximum
observed constituent concentrations for other newly listed hazardous
wastes in a November 8, 2000 final rule.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order (EO) 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have Federalism implications'' is
defined in the EO to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects 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.''
    This direct final rule does not have Federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in EO 13132.
    This amendment applies directly to responsible parties. They do not
apply to governmental entities unless the government entity releases
any of the listed hazardous wastes. This regulation also does not limit
the power of States or localities to the responsible parties. Thus, EO
13132 does not apply to this direct final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The changes in
this direct final rule do not result in any changes to the requirements
of 40 CFR 302.6. Thus Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This direct final rule is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in EO 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The changes in this direct final
rule do not result in any changes to the requirements in 40 CFR 302.6.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that the direct final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because the amendments do
not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 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. 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 U.S. 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 in 40 CFR Part 302

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund,
Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: February 14, 2012.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

    For the reasons set out, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and
1361.

0
2. In Sec.  302.6, paragraph (b)(1)(iii), the table is amended by
adding entries K169, K170, K171, and K172 in numerical order to read as
follows:

Sec.  302.6  Notification requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Waste                    Constituent            Max ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K169..........................  Benzene...............             220.0
K170..........................  Benzene...............               1.2
                                Benzo (a) pyrene......             230.0
                                Dibenz (a,h)                        49.0
                                 anthracene.
                                Benzo (a) anthracene..             390.0
                                Benzo (b) fluoranthene             110.0
                                Benzo (k) fluoranthese             110.0
                                3-Methylcholanthrene..              27.0
                                7, 12-Dimethylbenz (a)           1,200.0
                                 anthracene.
K171..........................  Benzene...............             500.0
                                Arsenic...............           1,600.0
K172..........................  Benzene...............             100.0
                                Arsenic...............             730.0

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

[FR Doc. 2012-4060 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS:

POLLUTION PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES SUPPORTING STATEMENT March 14, 2003 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission Standards Division Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 i CONTENTS 1. Identification of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( a) Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Need for and Use of the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2( b) Use/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Non duplication, Consultations, and other Collection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3( a) Non duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3( b) Public Notice required prior to ICR submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4( a) Industry Respondents/ SIC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4( b) Information Requested from Industry Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ( i) Data items, including record keeping requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ( ii) Industry Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4( c) State/ Local Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ii CONTENTS 4( d) Information Requested from State/ Local Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ( i) Data items, including record keeping requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ( ii) State/ Local Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ( i) Estimating Labor Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6( c) Estimating State/ Local Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6( d) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6( e) Estimating the Respondent Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6( f) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ( i) Respondent Tally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ( ii) EPA/ State/ Local Tally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ( iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6( g) Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6( h) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 iii TABLES Table 1.1 Potential Industry Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 6.1 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost ( Industry) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 6.2 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost ( EPA/ State/ Local Agencies) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection  Implementation of Pollution Prevention Alternatives in the 40 CFR 63 General Provisions. The is a new ICR and the ICR number is 2099.01.

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract  Respondents are owners or operators of facilities subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) promulgated under section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act that voluntarily choose to comply with pollution prevention alternatives proposed for the Part 63 General Provisions. Consistent with EPA's policy of promoting pollution prevention, the proposed amendments would revise the Part 63 General Provisions to provide regulatory relief, where appropriate, to facilities that use pollution prevention to achieve and maintain reductions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) equivalent to or better than the level of control required under an applicable NESHAP.

Facilities subject to a NESHAP that implement pollution prevention to reduce air toxics emissions at least to the level of MACT may apply for alternative compliance requirements. Such facilities have two options under the proposed amendments:

Option 1: Facilities that implement pollution prevention to eliminate all air toxics emissions subject to the regulation could apply to no longer be subject to that regulation.

Option 2: Facilities that implement pollution prevention to reduce air toxics emissions to at least the level required by the regulation could apply for pollution prevention alternative requirements. Alternative compliance requirements could include monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and/ or other requirements consistent with the pollution prevention measures implemented by the facility. They could not include alternative emission limits.

Under either option, if the facility failed to maintain the approved pollution prevention measures, the NESHAP would apply immediately.

To qualify for Option1, an owner or operator must first submit a written request that includes all information necessary to show that the applicable rule should no longer apply, including at a minimum a statement identifying the rule and the operations subject to it, a description and demonstration of the pollution prevention measures and that all HAP emissions have been eliminated, a certification that the source will not resume emitting HAP unless a 30 day prior notification is given, and a certification that the NESHAP will again apply on the date that HAP emissions resume. The owner or operator may submit additional information if the original request is not approved or is deemed to be insufficient. 2 To apply for Option 2, an owner or operator must submit a written request documenting compliance status and demonstrating that the pollution prevention alternative is justified. The minimum information requirements include identifying sources of emissions subject to the applicable rule, sources of emissions for which pollution prevention has been applied, a description of the pollution prevention techniques, a demonstration that the techniques reduce emission to the level ( or below) required by the rule, procedures for monitoring and demonstrating continuous compliance, citations in the rule of the requirements to be replaced, and certifications that ensure the source will remain in compliance. The owner or operator may submit additional information if the original request is not approved or is deemed to be insufficient.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection  The EPA is charged under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish NESHAP for new or existing major sources or area sources that reflect:

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

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

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data  The facility's notifications and reports to the Agency will be used by EPA and participating regulatory entities to monitor a facility's compliance with the pollution prevention alternative( s) and to determine whether the facility continues to be eligible for alternative( s).

3. Non duplication, Consultations, and other Collection Criteria 3( a) Non duplication  The information to be obtained under this ICR has not been collected by EPA or any other state or local agency.

3( b) Public Notice required prior to ICR submission to OMB  The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register prior to submitting the ICR to OMB for review. The proposal preamble addresses Paperwork Reduction Act requirements. 3 3( c) Consultations  State and local agencies have urged EPA to do more to encourage pollution prevention in the MACT standards program. As a result, EPA has partnered with states and local agency air pollution control representatives to develop alternatives within the program that would be incentives for using pollution prevention techniques. A series of meetings was conducted to discuss these proposed amendments and to develop acceptable details for implementation. These proposed pollution prevention alternatives are a result of consultations with state and local agencies as well as industry stakeholders.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection  The proposed rule provides voluntary options that reduce the reporting burden for affected respondents that qualify for the pollution prevention alternatives. Consequently, the net effect of this proposal will be less frequent collection than is currently required. The information requested by the proposed rule is important to determine whether participants continue to be eligible for the incentive. If the information were collected less frequently, EPA would not be reasonably assured that the plant is in compliance.

3( e) General Guidelines  This information collection adheres to the general guidelines set forth by the Office of Management and Budget.

3( f) Confidentiality  All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions  The reporting requirements addressed in this information request do not include sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Industry Respondents/ SIC Codes  Potential respondents include all entities regulated by EPA pursuant to its authority under section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act. The respondents represent numerous SIC codes and source categories. Table 1.1 lists the various source categories that may qualify for pollution prevention alternatives and the number of affected sources in each category. These facilities are subject to NESHAP promulgated as of October 1, 2002. Only a fraction of the affected facilities are expected to qualify. The categories are grouped according to their estimated potential to implement the pollution prevention options.

Group 1 includes source categories such as surface coatings that have the best opportunities to eliminate HAP emissions by HAP substitution. Group 2 represents source categories that have moderate opportunities for HAP substitution or new process technology to eliminate HAP emissions. Group 3 is for source categories that have no chance of completely eliminating HAP emissions because the HAP is an integral or unavoidable part of the processing; however, they Table 1.1 Potential Industry Respondents 4 Group 1 Sources: Most Potential for Pollution Prevention Alternatives Source Category Subpart Compliance Date Number of Affected Sources Aerospace Industry GG 9/ 1/ 1998 2,800 Large Appliance Surface Coating NNNN 7/ 23/ 2005 70 Magnetic Tape EE 12/ 15/ 1996 14 Metal Coil Surface Coating SSSS 6/ 10/ 2005 90 Printing/ Publishing KK 5/ 30/ 1999 200 Shipbuilding and Ship Repair II 12/ 16/ 1996 35 Wood Furniture JJ 11/ 21/ 1997 750 Total 3,959 Group 2 Sources: Moderate Potential for Pollution Prevention Alternatives Source Category Subpart Compliance Date Number of Affected Sources Boat Manufacturing VVVV 8/ 22/ 2004 119 Commercial Sterilizers O 12/ 6/ 1998 114 Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production III 10/ 8/ 2001 176 Leather Finishing TTTT 2/ 27/ 2005 16 Pesticide Active Ingredient Production MMM 6/ 30/ 2002 28 Pharmaceuticals Production GGG 9/ 21/ 2001 100 Tire Manufacturing XXXX 7/ 11/ 2005 31 Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production GGGG 4/ 12/ 2004 106 Total 690 Group 3 Sources: Low Potential for Pollution Prevention Alternatives Source Category Subpart Compliance Date Number of Affected Sources Cellulose Production Manufacturing UUUU 6/ 11/ 2005 13 Coke Ovens: Doors, Lids, Offtakes, and Charging L 11/ 15/ 1993 19 Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, and Sulfite Pulp and Paper Mills ( MACT II) MM 1/ 12/ 2004 136 Ferroalloys Production XXX 5/ 20/ 2001 1 Gasoline Distribution ( Stage 1) R 12/ 15/ 1997 100 Generic MACT YY 6/ 29/ 2002 84 Hazardous Organic NESHAP F, G, H, I 5/ 14/ 2001 370 Hazardous Waste Combustion EEE 9/ 30/ 2002 172 Industrial Cooling Towers Q 3/ 8/ 1995 400 Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast CCCC 5/ 21/ 2004 10 Marine Vessel Loading Operations Y 9/ 19/ 1999 30 Mineral Wool Production DDD 6/ 1/ 2002 14 Natural Gas Transmission and Storage HHH 6/ 17/ 2002 5 Off Site Waste Recovery Operations DD 2/ 1/ 2000 250 Oil and Natural Gas Production HH 6/ 17/ 2002 440 Petroleum Refineries ( MACT 1) CC 8/ 18/ 1998 192 Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking, Catalytic Reforming, and Sulfur Plant Units UUU 4/ 11/ 2005 129 Table 1.1 Potential Industry Respondents Group 3 Sources: Low Potential for Pollution Prevention Alternatives Source Category Subpart Compliance Date Number of Affected Sources 5 Phosphate Fertilizers BB 6/ 10/ 2002 29 Phosphoric Acid AA 6/ 10/ 2002 31 Polyether Polyols Production PPP 6/ 1/ 2002 80 Polymers and Resins I U 7/ 31/ 1997 36 Polymers and Resins II W 3/ 3/ 1998 20 Polymers and Resins III OOO 1/ 20/ 2003 40 Polymers and Resins IV JJJ 7/ 31/ 1997 66 Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production J 7/ 10/ 2005 28 Portland Cement Manufacturing LLL 6/ 10/ 2002 180 Primary Aluminum Production LL 10/ 7/ 1999 23 Primary Copper QQQ 6/ 12/ 2005 4 Primary Lead Smelting TTT 5/ 4/ 2001 3 Publicly Owned Treatment Works ( POTW) VVV 10/ 26/ 2002 new only Pulp and Paper ( non chemical) MACT III S 4/ 16/ 2001 155 Pulp and Paper ( non combustion) MACT I S 4/ 15/ 2001 155 Secondary Lead Smelters X 6/ 23/ 1997 23 Steel Pickling HCl Process CCC 6/ 22/ 2001 64 Tetrahydrobenzaldehyde Manufacture F 5/ 12/ 2001 2 Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production HHHH 4/ 11/ 2005 14 Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NNN 6/ 14/ 2002 21 Total 3,339 Group 4 Sources: Very Low Potential for Burden Reduction Source Category Subpart Compliance Date Number of Affected Sources Chromium Electroplating N 1/ 25/ 1996 5,020 Degreasing Organic Cleaners ( Halogenated Solvent Cleaning) T 12/ 2/ 1997 24,500 Dry Cleaning M 9/ 23/ 1996 3,600 Secondary Aluminum RRR 3/ 24/ 2003 2,050 Total 35,170 Group 5 Sources: Proposed Rules with Future Potential for Pollution Prevention Alternatives Source Category Subpart Proposal Date Number of Affected Facilities Asphalt Roofing and Processing LLLLL 11/ 21/ 2001 9 Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing JJJJJ 7/ 22/ 2002 169 Clay Ceramics Manufacturing KKKKK 7/ 22/ 2002 8 Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks CCCCC 7/ 3/ 2001 19 Table 1.1 Potential Industry Respondents Group 5 Sources: Proposed Rules with Future Potential for Pollution Prevention Alternatives Source Category Subpart Proposal Date Number of Affected Facilities 6 Engine Test Cells/ Stands PPPPP 5/ 14/ 2002 new only Fabric Printing, Coating and Dyeing OOOO 7/ 11/ 2002 135 Flexible Polyurethane Foam MMMMM 8/ 8/ 2001 48 Friction Products Manufacturing QQQQQ 10/ 4/ 2001 4 Hydrochloric Acid Production NNNNN 9/ 18/ 2001 32 Integrated Iron and Steel FFFFF 7/ 13/ 2001 18 Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali Plants IIIII 7/ 3/ 2002 11 Metal Furniture ( Surface Coating) RRRR 4/ 24/ 2002 655 Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( Surface Coating) MMMM 8/ 13/ 2002 1,500 Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Production and Processes FFFF 4/ 4/ 2002 251 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills AAAA 11/ 7/ 2000 1,309 Organic Liquids Distribution ( non gasoline) EEEE 4/ 2/ 2002 650 Paper and Other Web ( Surface Coating) JJJJ 9/ 13/ 2000 200 Refractory Products Manufacturing SSSSS 6/ 20/ 2002 8 Reinforced Plastic Composites Production WWWW 8/ 2/ 2001 433 Semiconductor Manufacturing BBBBB 5/ 8/ 2002 1 Site Remediation GGGGG 7/ 30/ 2002 250 Wood Building Products QQQQ 6/ 21/ 2002 205 Total 5,915 have some opportunities for pollution prevention alternatives under Option 2. Group 4 source categories have few opportunities for burden reduction and thus are not likely to benefit much by pollution prevention alternatives. These are mostly area sources and/ or small businesses that are subject to the least burdensome of the MACT monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. For example, the average annual burden for dry cleaning is only 49 hrs/ yr per respondent ( 3,600 sources) and 42 hr/ yr for degreasing operations using halogenated solvents ( 24,500 sources). Group 5 is for proposed MACT rules that may have opportunities for pollution prevention opportunities in the future. However, they would not have the opportunities within the 3 year period of this ICR.

4( b) Information Requested from Industry Respondents ( i) Data items, including record keeping requirements  Respondents that are eligible for the pollution prevention alternatives will need to comply with the requirements in the proposed rule. For the pollution prevention alternative, respondents must maintain records 7 documenting conformance with the approved alternative requirements for monitoring and demonstrating continuous compliance.

( ii) Industry Respondent Activities  To qualify for a pollution prevention alternative, the owner or operator must submit a written request and provide enough information to document that the source qualifies for the pollution prevention exemption or for the pollution prevention alternative. The owner or operator may submit additional information if the original request is not approved or is found to be insufficient. Other reports that will be made must be proposed by the owner or operator and approved by EPA on a case by case basis. Similarly, alternatives for monitoring and demonstrating continuous compliance will be made on a case bycase basis and must be appropriate for the pollution prevention techniques that are used. The respondent activities and associated burden are identified in Table 2 and introduced in section 6( a).

4( c) State/ Local Agencies include all State and local agencies with delegated authority to administer and enforce MACT standards.

4( d) Information Requested from State/ Local Agencies ( i) Data items, including record keeping requirements  To implement the alternatives contained in this proposed rulemaking, certain State and local agencies will need to maintain records of alternative compliance results. However, this is expected to be a reduction in the recordkeeping burden because the alternatives will replace more frequent compliance reporting that is currently required.

( ii) State/ Local Agency Activities  Delegated State and local agencies will need to review written requests for the pollution prevention alternatives and issue a notice of approval or disapproval.

5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities  EPA will need to continue to provide oversight of its delegated programs. The Agency does not anticipate any significant increase in its administrative duties to implement these pollution prevention alternatives.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management  Required documents and reports submitted to implement the pollution prevention alternatives will be sent to the delegated agency. To the extent practicable, the delegated agency will utilize electronic submissions of reporting requirements.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility  This program is voluntary and all participants are expected to have reduced burdens associated with monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. 8 This opportunity for burden reduction is available for all small businesses subject to a NESHAP promulgated under section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act.

5( d) Collection Schedule  The proposed rule allows the owner or operator to propose a collection schedule, which must be approved by the delegated authority. In almost all cases, the collection schedule is expected to be equal to or less frequent than what would otherwise have been required by the applicable NESHAP.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection This section presents EPA's estimates of the respondent's burden hours and cost to complete the activities associated with this information collection. In using this analysis, it should be noted again that all responses to this information collection are voluntary. There are expected benefits to those who choose to participate in the pollution prevention alternative requirements. EPA does not expect a response from a facility where the burdens associated with preparing the response outweigh the expected benefits to the facility.

In addition to industry respondents, this section presents EPA's estimates of the State/ local agency and EPA burden hours and costs to implement the alternatives associated with this proposed rulemaking. Some State and local regulatory authorities may need to spend time reviewing requests and issuing approvals or disapprovals. Finally, these rulemaking changes will result in a small increased administrative cost for EPA.

6( a) Estimating Industry Respondent Burden  This ICR requires the calculation of the amount of burden hours associated with each activity for each respondent. For those facilities that qualify for the pollution prevention alternatives, there will be a reduction in the burden associated with monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping.

6( b) Estimating Industry Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs  In this ICR, EPA has used a graded approach in calculating cost as recommended in the ICR handbook. Wage rates for industry respondents were retrieved from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ( http:// www. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t12. htm; updated June 2002.) The hourly rates are listed as follows: $ 49.66 for management labor, $ 38.96 for technical labor, and $ 21.14 for clerical labor. These labor rates were multiplied by 1.5 to account for overhead costs. Therefore, we estimated the hourly cost of labor for industry respondents to be $ 74.49 for management labor, $ 58.44 for technical labor, and $ 31.71 for clerical labor. Table 6.1 provides a breakdown of labor hours and associated costs per activity.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs  The facilities that may apply for pollution prevention alternatives maintain environmental compliance data as a customary business practice. EPA does not expect any start up or capital costs to affect participants beyond those labor costs outlined in the tables in this section. 9 6( c) Estimating State/ Local Agency Burden and Cost Similar to sections 6( a) and 6( b), the activities for State/ local agencies are divided into the activities that would take place to implement the relevant pollution prevention alternatives in this proposed rulemaking. Wage rates ( including benefits) for State/ local employees were retrieved from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( http:// www. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t04. htm; updated June 2002) and are as follows: $ 39.17 per hour for management labor, $ 40.42 per hour for professional technical labor, and $ 20.34 per hour for clerical labor. We chose 20 percent of the labor rate ( including benefits) as the percentage that constitutes overhead. Therefore, we estimated the hourly cost of labor for State/ local employees to be $ 47.00 for management labor, $ 48.50 for technical labor, and $ 24.41 for clerical labor.

Table 6.2 provides a breakdown of labor hours and associated costs for State/ local agencies.

6( d) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost EPA would provide a contact for Performance Track facilities to expedite their requests for pollution prevention alternatives. As recommended in the ICR Handbook, wage rates for EPA employees are based upon the Federal government pay scale. We calculated the hourly rates for EPA employees using information on annual salaries from the Internet site for the Office of Personnel Management. ( http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 02tables/ 02rus. pdf; accessed January 2002) . We used the appropriate pay grade levels for management, technical, and clerical personnel. We divided the annual pay rate by 2080, the amount of working hours during a calendar year, to get the hourly wage rate. We then multiplied this rate by 1.6 to produce a pay rate that reflects the true cost to the Federal government to employ a worker. The value of 1.6 incorporates the addition of benefits at 40 percent of salary and the addition of overhead at 20 percent of salary to the hourly rate. Following is a summary of the computed wages for EPA personnel.

Hourly Labor Rates for EPA Labor Type Pay Grade Annual Salary Hourly Rate Benefits ( 40 % Salary) Overhead ( 20 % Salary) Adjusted Hourly Rate Management GS 15 $ 89,715 $ 43.13 $ 17.25 $ 8.63 $ 69.01 Technical GS 12 $ 54,275 $ 26.09 $ 10.44 $ 5.22 $ 41.75 Clerical GS 6 $ 27,534 $ 13.24 $ 5.30 $ 2.65 $ 21.19 A separate line item is included in Table 6.2 for the hours and cost associated with EPA personnel. 10 6( e) Estimating the Respondent Universe The respondents for this ICR are facilities subject to promulgated MACT standards as listed in Table 1.1. All of these facilities will not be able to qualify for the pollution prevention alternatives in the proposed amendments. The Group 1 sources in Table 1.1 ( primarily those with HAP in surface coatings) are expected to have the best opportunities for eliminating all HAP and qualifying for an exemption to the MACT standard Option 1). Those in Group 2 will have fewer opportunities, and facilities in Group 3 will likely not be able to eliminate all HAP. As a conservative estimate, we believe that at least 3% of the Group 1 facilities ( 3,959 x 0.03 = 119) and 1.5% of the Group 2 facilities ( 690 x 0.015 = 10) will qualify for the pollution prevention exemption ( a total of 129 facilities). None of the Group 3 facilities are expected to be able to completely eliminate all HAP emissions and qualify for the exemption.

More facilities are expected to qualify for the pollution prevention alternative that can be applied to individual emission points ( Option 2). We expect some facilities to apply for reduced compliance reporting ( e. g., from semiannual to annual) and other facilities to use pollution prevention techniques that will make it unnecessary to conduct performance testing for HAP emissions. Conservatively, we estimate that 3% of the Groups 1, 2, and 3 facilities ( 7,988 x 0.03 = 240) will qualify for the pollution prevention alternative of reduced compliance reporting and reduced performance testing. We are estimating no burden reduction or other effect for the Group 4 facilities ( a total of 35,170) because they currently have low burden requirements and are not expected to apply for the pollution prevention alternatives.

We reviewed a representative sampling of ICRs for existing MACT rules to estimate potential burden reductions for Options 1 and 2. The results are summarized in Attachment 1. We used a median burden reduction of 501 hours per year for facilities that obtain an exemption from the applicable MACT standard ( Option 1). For Option 2, we used an annual reduction of 16 hours per year for facilities that reduce compliance reporting from semi annual to annual. For facilities that qualify for eliminating a performance test, we used a median value of 204 hours per year based on a review of several ICRs.

6( f) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost ( i) Industry Respondent Tally  Table 6.1 presents a summary of the annual burden and costs, or cost savings, associated with each of the pollution prevention alternatives proposed in this rulemaking.

( ii) EPA/ State/ Local Tally  Table 6.2 presents a summary of the annual burden hours and labor costs associated with this proposed rulemaking for EPA and State/ local agencies, and the total anticipated burden and costs. 11 ( iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line  EPA does not anticipate significant variation in the annual respondent reporting burden over the course of the requested ICR period.

6( g) Reasons for Change in Burden  This is an new ICR. There are no changes in burden.

6( h) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average a reduction of 137 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0044, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OAR 2002 0044) in any correspondence. 12 Table 6.1 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost ( Industry)

Burden item ( A)

Hours per occurrence ( B) Occurrences per year per facility ( C) Number of facilities ( D) Technical personhours per year ( D= AxBxC) ( E) Management person hours per year ( Dx0.05) ( F) Clerical personhours per year ( Dx0.1) ( G) Cost,$ a 1. Submit request for pollution prevention exemption ( Option 1) 40 0.33b 129c 1,703 85 170 $ 111,246 2. Submit additional information for Option 1 8 0.33 b 12.9d 34 2 3 $ 2,231 3. Burden reduction for Option 1 ( 501) g 0.67e 129c ( 43,301) ( 2,165) ( 4,330) ($ 2,829,086)

4. Submit request for pollution prevention alternative ( Option 2) for annual compliance reporting ( instead of semiannual) 16 0.33b 240f 1,267 63 127 $ 82,764 5. Submit additional information for Option 2 8 0.33 b 24d 63 3 6 $ 4,095 6. Burden reduction for Option 2 for annual compliance reporting ( instead of semiannual) ( 16) 0.67e 240f ( 2,573) ( 129) ( 257) ($ 168,125)

7. Submit request for pollution prevention alternative for performance test ( Option 2) 40 0.33b 240f 3,168 158 317 $ 206,959 8. Submit additional information for Option 2 8 0.33 b 24d 63 3 6 $ 4,095 9. Burden reduction for Option 2 for no performance test ( 204) h 0.67e 240f ( 32,803) ( 1,640) ( 3,280) ($ 2,143,180)

Total ( 72,379) ( 3,620) ( 7,238) ($ 4,729,000)

a Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 58.44, management at $ 74.49, and clerical at $ 31.71.

b This is a one time event for each facility over the 3 year term of the ICR ( 1/ 3 = 0.33 occurrences per year).

c Based on 3% of the Group 1 ( surface coating) facilities qualifying for the exemption ( 3,959 x 0.03 = 119) plus 1.5% of the Group 2 facilities ( 690 x 0.015 = 10) for a total of 129.

d Assumes 10% of the facilities must submit additional information.

e Assumes facilities apply for alternatives during the first year and get burden reductions during the second and third year of the 3 year term of this ICR ( 2/ 3= 0.67 occurrences per year).

f Assumes 3% of the facilities in Groups 1, 2, and 3 apply for annual reporting instead of semiannual reporting and the same number use pollution prevention to eliminate an annual performance test ( 7,988 x 0.03 = 240). 13 g Based on the median value for the recurring annual burden for a representative mix of source categories ( see Attachment 1).

h Based on the median annual burden for performance tests for several source categories ( see Attachment 1).

Table 6.2 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost ( EPA/ State/ Local Agencies)

Burden item ( A)

Hours per occurrence ( B) Occurrences per year per facility ( C) Number of facilities ( D) Technical personhours per year ( D= AxBxC) ( E) Management person hours per year ( Dx0.05) ( F) Clerical personhours per year ( Dx0.1) ( G) Cost,$ a 1. Review requests for pollution prevention exemption ( Option 1) 8 0.33 b 129c 341 17.0 34.0 18,167 2. Review additional information for Option 1 4 0.33b 12.9d 17 1.0 2.0 920 3. Review requests for pollution prevention alternative annual compliance report ( Option 2) 8 0.33 b 240e 634 32.0 63.0 33,791 4. Review additional information for Option 2 ( annual compliance) 4 0.33 b 24d 32 2.0 3.0 1,719 5. Review requests for pollution prevention alternative no performance test ( Option 2) 8 0.33 b 240e 634 32.0 63.0 33,791 6. Review additional information for Option 2 ( no performance test) 4 0.33 b 24d 32 2.0 3.0 1,719 7. Burden reduction from fewer compliance reports to review and file ( 2) 0.67f 609g ( 816) ( 41.0) ( 82.0) ( 43,505)

8. EPA facilitation for Performance Track facilities 16 0.33b 12h 63 3.0 6.0 2,964i Total 937 48 92 49,567 a Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 48.50, management at $ 47.00, and clerical at $ 24.41.

b This is a one time event for each facility over the 3 year term of the ICR ( 1/ 3 = 0.33 occurrences per year).

c Based on 3% of the Group 1 ( surface coating) facilities qualifying for the exemption ( 3,959 x 0.03 = 119) plus 1.5% of the Group 2 facilities ( 690 x 0.015 = 10) for a total of 129.

d Assumes 10% of the facilities must submit additional information.

e Assumes 3% of the facilities in Groups 1, 2, and 3 apply for annual reporting instead of semiannual reporting and the same number use pollution prevention to eliminate an annual performance test ( 7,988 x 0.03 = 240). 14 f Assumes facilities apply for alternatives during the first year and get burden reductions during the second and third year of the 3 year term of this ICR ( 2/ 3= 0.67 occurrences per year).

g For all qualifying facilities ( 129 + 240 + 240 = 609).

h A total of 12 Performance Track facilities are estimated to be eligible based on reporting emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

i EPA costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 41.75, management at $ 69.01, and clerical at $ 21.19. 15 ATTACHMENT 1. ESTIMATE OF BURDEN REDUCTION 1. Estimate the burden reduction for an exemption from the NESHAP ( Option 1) from the median value from ICRs for several source categories. Use annual recurring items only:

Source Burden ( technical hrs/ yr)

Aerospace  coatings 532 Aerospace  depainting 253 Leather finishing 114 Magnetic tape manufacturing 782 Metal coil ( surface coating) 470 Pesticide active ingredient 778 Phosphoric acid and phosphate fertilizer 345 Printing and publishing 1,136 Vegetable oil 720 Wood furniture 198 Median 501 2. Estimate the burden reduction from eliminating performance tests from the average of several ICRs:

Source category Performance tests ( hr/ yr)

Metal coil 192 Pesticides 188 Phosphate fertilizer 168 Aerospace 280 Magnetic Tape 215 Printing/ Publishing 240 Median 204