[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 244 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82470-82471]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27930]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3309-021]

Marlow Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With
the Commission, Soliciting Additional Study Requests, Establishing
Procedural Schedule for Relicensing, and Setting Deadline for
Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 3309-021.
    c. Date filed: December 1, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Marlow Hydro, LLC (Marlow Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Nash Mill Dam Project.
    f. Location: On the Ashuelot River, in the town of Marlow, Cheshire
County, New Hampshire. The project does not occupy federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Anthony Rosario and Carole Rosario, 139
Henniker St., Hillsborough, New Hampshire 03244,<PHONE_NUMBER>, (603)
494-3897, or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 2b485b594a49596b5f4f5805454e5f.
    i. FERC Contact: Adam Peer at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.

    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: January 30, 2021.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-3309-021.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. Marlow Hydro electronically filed the final license application
cover letter and exhibit G drawings with the Commission on November 30,
2020 at 6:39 p.m. and the license application on December 1, 2020 at
10:03 a.m. Pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2), any document received
after 5:00 p.m. eastern time is considered filed on the next regular
business day. By this notice, the requirement under 18 CFR 16.20(c) to
file the subsequent license application at least 24 months before the
expiration of the current license (i.e., no later than November 30,
2020 at 5:00 p.m.) is waived.
    o. Project Description: The existing Nash Mill Dam Project utilizes
water from the 2-acre impoundment and consists of: (1) A 249-foot-long
dam consisting of: (i) A 57-foot-long, 9 foot-high concrete gravity
spillway topped with 3-foot-high wooden flashboards, (ii) a 12-foot-
long concrete intake section, and (iii) two, 12-foot-high earthen dam
sections totaling 180 feet in length; (2) an intake structure with a
10-foot-high, 10-foot-wide trash rack; (3) a 1,500 foot-long, 48-inch
diameter steel penstock; (4) a 31-foot-long, 18-foot-wide powerhouse
located on the north side of the Ashuelot River that contains two
vertical-shaft, fixed propeller turbine-generator units and one
horizontal-shaft turbine-generator unit for a total installed capacity
of 225 kilowatts; (5) a 600-foot-long tailrace; (6) a 1,800-foot-long
bypassed reach; (7) a 1,400 foot-long transmission line and a 12.5-
kilovolt transformer; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The average
annual generation was 558,923 kilowatt-hours for the period from 2009
to 2018.
    Marlow Hydro currently operates the project in run-of-river mode
and releases a minimum flow of 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) into the
bypassed reach.
    Marlow Hydro proposes to continue to operate in run-of-river mode
and to increase the minimum flow released into the bypassed reach to 12
cfs.
    p. In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this notice, as well
as other documents in the proceeding (e.g., license application) via
the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov)
using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document (P-
3309). At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    q. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions
to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary) February 2021
Request Additional Information February 2021
Issue Notice of Acceptance May 2021
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments June 2021
Request Additional Information (if necessary) September 2021
Issue Scoping Document 2 September 2021
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis September 2021

    r. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: December 14, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27930 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50851-50854]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21665]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0054; FRL-9984-99-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to the infrastructure requirement
for interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 2012 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this revision in accordance with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0054. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Schulingkamp,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 14, 2018 (83 FR 27732), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the NPR, EPA
proposed approval of the Pennsylvania SIP revision addressing the
interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submitted on October 11, 2017. For
more information on particulate pollution, EPA's infrastructure
requirements, and interstate transport requirements, see Section I of
the NPR.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017 SIP submittal includes a summary of
statewide annual emissions of PM2.5, coarse particulate
matter (PM10), and precursors of PM2.5 including
oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
ammonia, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Pennsylvania also
included statewide SO2 and NOX emissions
specifically from the electric generating units (EGU) sector as EGUs
are the largest contributor to the point source emissions. The
emissions summary shows that, for the years 2011 through 2015,
emissions of all pollutants presented have been steadily decreasing or
remained nearly steady for sources that potentially contribute to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. The submittal also included
currently available air quality monitoring data for PM2.5.
    Pennsylvania also discussed EPA's March 17, 2016 memorandum (2016
PM2.5 Memorandum) and the fact that EPA's analysis showed
that only one monitor in the eastern United States had projected
PM2.5 data above the 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) NAAQS value (Allegheny County, PA).\1\ Pennsylvania
also generally discussed prevailing wind directions and several

existing SIP-approved measures and other federally enforceable source-
specific measures, pursuant to permitting requirements under the CAA,
that apply to sources of PM2.5 and its precursors within the
Commonwealth. Pennsylvania alleges that with these measures, emissions
reductions, ambient monitored PM2.5 data, and meteorological
data, the Commonwealth does not significantly contribute to, or
interfere with the maintenance of, another state for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor''
Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),''
memorandum from Stephan D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA used the information in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum
and additional information for the evaluation and came to the same
conclusion as Pennsylvania. EPA identified the potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the 2016
PM2.5 Memorandum, and then determined that Pennsylvania's
emissions will not contribute to these receptors, and thus will not
contribute to nonattainment and maintenance problems, in 2021--the
attainment year for moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    A detailed summary of Pennsylvania's submittal and the rationale
for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and accompanying
technical support document (TSD) and will not be restated here.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received a total of four sets of comments on the June 14, 2018
NPR. Three of those did not concern any of the specific issues raised
in the NPR, nor did they address EPA's rationale for the proposed
approval of Pennsylvania's submittal. Therefore, EPA is not responding
to those comments. EPA did receive one relevant set of comments; those
comments, and EPA's response is discussed below. All of the comments
received are included in the docket for this action.
    Comment: The commenter first identifies that Pennsylvania submitted
a SIP revision on July 15, 2014 and that all elements were approved
except those under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The commenter notes that EPA is required to act on
a SIP revision within 12 months of finding the submittal complete and
asks why EPA has not performed its statutory duty of acting on CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) within the prescribed time frame. The
commenter continues, asking what was done between 2014 and the present
to ensure that visibility protection was federally enforceable as
required ``by this prong 4'' in terms of protecting human health and
the environment.
    Response: As stated in the NPR, Pennsylvania's July 15, 2014 SIP
submittal did not include provisions addressing CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and therefore that particular element of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D) (prohibiting emissions that contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state) was not before EPA for approval. See 83 FR
27733 (June 14, 2018). EPA's prior action on the July 15, 2014 SIP
submittal approved the portion of the submittal which addressed the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) element related to prevention of
significant deterioration as it was addressed in the July 15, 2014 SIP
submission, except EPA did not approve the portion of the July 15, 2014
submittal addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to the
visibility prong, that is, ``prong 4.'' See 80 FR 26461 (May 8, 2015).
EPA did not take action on prong 4 because the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit had vacated and remanded EPA's limited approval
of Pennsylvania's regional haze SIP (as it related to certain best
available retrofit technology (BART) requirements). See Nat'l Parks
Conservation Ass'n v. United States EPA, 803 F.3d 151 (3rd Cir. 2015).
EPA had also previously done a limited disapproval of the Pennsylvania
regional haze SIP for relying on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
\2\ to satisfy the BART requirement for emissions of SO2 and
NOX from Pennsylvania's BART-eligible electric generating
units (EGUs). See 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). In that same action, EPA
imposed a federal implementation plan (FIP) that replaced
Pennsylvania's reliance on CAIR with reliance on the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) \3\ for certain BART requirements for EGUs.
Thus, due to the Third Circuit's remand of the limited approval on the
Pennsylvania regional haze SIP for certain BARTs and due to the partial
regional haze FIP applicable to certain EGU BARTs, EPA was not able to
approve at that time that portion of Pennsylvania's July 15, 2014 SIP
submittal addressing whether the Pennsylvania SIP had adequate
provisions to prevent interference with other states' efforts to
protect visibility (prong 4, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). As
indicated in EPA's final action on the July 15, 2014 SIP submittal, EPA
stated the Agency would take later separate action on the portion of
the July 15, 2014 submittal addressing prong 4. See 80 FR 26461.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CAIR required certain states, including Pennsylvania, to
reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that
significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 NAAQS
for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 70 FR
25162 (May 12, 2005).
    \3\ EPA promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) as a
replacement to CAIR in response to the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's decision in North
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding commenter's concern about what was done between July 2014
and the present to ensure that visibility was protected, EPA notes that
the partial regional haze FIP has been in place since July 2012
providing visibility protection as the partial FIP addresses
NOX and SO2 BART from EGUs in Pennsylvania which
are some of the largest emitters of visibility impairing pollutants in
the Commonwealth. Pennsylvania is currently preparing a revised
regional haze SIP submission to respond to the September 2015 decision
from the Third Circuit.
    Furthermore, as EPA stated in the NPR, ``EPA's previous approval on
that July 15, 2014 submittal is not at issue in this proposed
rulemaking action and is mentioned herein for background; EPA is not at
this time taking action on the remaining section of PADEP's July 15,
2014 submittal relating to visibility protection for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.'' The NPR noted that EPA will take later,
separate action on the July 15, 2014 submittal as it relates to
visibility protection under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). This
rulemaking action relates only to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which
Pennsylvania addressed in its October 11, 2017 SIP submission. The
October 11, 2017 submittal was determined complete on October 26, 2017,
therefore the statutory deadline for EPA's final action is October 26,
2018. EPA's final rulemaking herein meets that statutory deadline.
    Comment: The commenter asks why, if Pennsylvania had not submitted
a SIP revision addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA did not issue a finding of failure to
submit as required by statute and then remedy the deficiency with a
FIP.
    Response: CAA section 110(a)(1) requires that states adopt and
submit to EPA ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may provide) after the promulgation of'' a new or revised
NAAQS a plan providing for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS. The revised 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS was
published on January 15, 2013 and became final on March 18, 2013. See
78 FR 3086. Thus, Pennsylvania was not required to submit a SIP to EPA
until March 18, 2016. Therefore, a finding of failure to submit for CAA
section

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or any FIP would have been premature when EPA acted
on the July 15, 2014 SIP submittal addressing section 110(a)(2)
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on May 8, 2015. In the
May 8, 2015 rulemaking, EPA stated it would take action on the
remaining elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility
protection at a later date. Our final action herein addresses the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for Pennsylvania with our
approval of Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017 submittal.
    Comment: The commenter requests that EPA explain and quantify how
delayed action on PADEP's SIP revisions with regard to CAA sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for PM2.5 affected any changes
in respiratory ailments in Pennsylvania residents.
    Response: First, EPA reiterates that the visibility protections
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) are not at issue in this
rulemaking as EPA has stated in the NPR and in our prior action on the
July 15, 2014 SIP submittal that we will take later rulemaking action
on Pennsylvania's obligations relating to visibility protection in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Second, EPA has not delayed action on
PADEP's SIP revision addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Pennsylvania submitted the SIP revision on October 11, 2017 and EPA
determined it complete on October 26, 2017; therefore, EPA's statutory
deadline is October 26, 2018. Because EPA has not delayed action, the
commenter's supposition that EPA's delay affected respiratory ailments
in Pennsylvania residents is based on a faulty premise and thus is
incorrect. In any event, consideration of respiratory ailments is not
required by the statutory language in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    Comment: The commenter asks why the regulatory community is
devoting so much time devising analyses and justification for
``elements that have no meaning in actual emission reductions or
improvement in air quality.'' The commenter continues by asking EPA to
explain what has been accomplished in terms of ensuring the well-being
of human health and the environment through this requirement.
    Response: CAA section 110(a)(1) requires all states to submit a SIP
addressing the elements of CAA section 110(a)(2), including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), within three years of EPA promulgating a new or
revised NAAQS. Therefore, the submission of a SIP addressing CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D) is required by law and must be addressed by the
states. In addition, the requirement for a new infrastructure SIP
submission provides an opportunity for the air agency, the public, and
EPA to review the basics of the air quality management program in light
of each new or revised NAAQS. In the case of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), this review is focused on whether a state's SIP
prevents interference with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in a
nearby state. For CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this review focuses
on whether the state's SIP addresses requirements for prevention of
significant deterioration and visibility protection. Thus, SIP measures
addressing CAA section 110(a)(2) are evaluated for a new or revised
NAAQS and therefore do protect human health or the environment.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the October 11, 2017 SIP revision addressing the
interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
to the Pennsylvania SIP because the submittal adequately addresses CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     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 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 state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 action 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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 10, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it

extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action addressing Pennsylvania's interstate transport requirements
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

    Dated: September 24, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is 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 NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
a second entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS'' after the first entry entitled the
same to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP      Applicable geographic       State                              Additional
            revision                       area           submittal date   EPA approval date      explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure  Statewide.............        10/11/17  10/10/18, [insert   Docket No. 2018-
 Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5                                           Federal Register    0054. This action
 NAAQS.                                                                    citation].          addresses the
                                                                                infrastructure
                                                                                element of CAA
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I
                                                                                ).

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-21665 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19058-19059]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08305]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2005-N-0464 (Formerly Docket No. 2005N-0403)]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Establishment Registration of
Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution and
Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that two
collections of information: ``Establishment Registration of Producers
of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution'' and ``Blood
Establishment Registration and Product Listing'' have been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 16, 2016, the Agency submitted
proposed collections of information entitled ``Establishment
Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial
Distribution'' and ``Blood Establishment Registration and Product
Listing'' to

OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has
assigned OMB control numbers 0910-0045 and 0910-0052, respectively. The
information collection 0910-0045 expires on December 31, 2018, and the
information collection 0910-0052 expires May 31, 2018. Copies of the
supporting statements for the information collections are available on
the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: April 18, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-08305 Filed 4-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75229-75230]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29067]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032]

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption;
Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)
has requested an exemption for one commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
driver, Martin Zeilinger, from the Federal requirement to hold a
commercial driver's license (CDL) issued by one of the States. This
project engineer holds a valid German CDL and wants to test-drive
Daimler vehicles on U.S. roads to better understand product
requirements for these systems in ``real world'' environments, and
verify results. Daimler believes the requirements for a German CDL
ensure that holders of the license will likely achieve a level of
safety equal to or greater than that of drivers who hold a U.S. State-
issued CDL.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2012-0032 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov at any time and in the box
labeled ``SEARCH for'' enter FMCSA-2012-0032 and click on the tab
labeled ``SEARCH.''
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or

postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that appears after
submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for granting or denying the exemption, and,
if granted, the specific person or class of persons receiving the
exemption, and the regulatory provision or provisions from which
exemption is granted. The notice must specify the effective period of
the exemption (up to 2 years), and explain the terms and conditions of
the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).
    Since 2012, FMCSA has granted four Daimler drivers similar
exemptions [May 25, 2012 (77 FR 31422); July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42626);
August 29, 2014 (79 FR 51641)]. Each of these drivers held a valid
German CDL but lacked the U.S. residency required to obtain a CDL.
FMCSA has concluded that the process for obtaining a German CDL is
comparable to or as effective as the U.S. CDL requirements and ensures
that these drivers will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to
or greater than the level that would be obtained in the absence of the
exemption.

Request for Exemption

    Daimler has applied for an exemption for one of its engineers from
49 CFR 383.23, which prescribes licensing requirements for drivers
operating CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. This driver,
Martin Zeilinger, holds a valid German CDL but is unable to obtain a
CDL in any of the U.S. States due to residency requirements. A copy of
the application is in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032.
    The exemption would allow Mr. Zeilinger to operate CMVs in
interstate or intrastate commerce to support Daimler field tests
designed to meet future vehicle safety and environmental requirements
and to develop improved safety and emission technologies. According to
Daimler, Mr. Zeilinger will typically drive for no more than 6 hours
per day for 2 consecutive days, and 10 percent of the test driving will
be on two-lane State highways, while 90 percent will be on interstate
highways. The driving will consist of no more than 200 miles per day,
for a total of 400 miles during a two-day period on a quarterly basis.
He will in all cases be accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is
familiar with the routes to be traveled. Daimler requests that the
exemption cover a two-year period.
    FMCSA has determined that the process for obtaining a German CDL is
comparable to the Federal requirements of 49 CFR part 383 and
adequately assesses a driver's ability to operate CMVs in the United
States.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA
requests public comment on Daimler's application for an exemption from
the CDL requirements of 49 CFR 383.23. The Agency will consider all
comments received by close of business on January 16, 2015. Comments
will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed
under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will consider to
the extent practicable comments received in the public docket after the
closing date of the comment period.

    Issued on: December 4, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-29067 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39827-39829]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16861]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75366; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-067]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Fees Assessed Under Rules 7015(b) and (g)

July 6, 2015.
    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 June 25, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to revert recently-increased fees assessed
under Rules 7015(b) and (g) to their levels prior to the fee increase
and to retroactively apply the lower fees in light of delays in
implementing hardware upgrades.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On April 22, 2015, NASDAQ filed a rule change that increased the
port fees assessed members and non-members for ports used to enter
orders into NASDAQ systems, in connection with the use of FIX and OUCH
trading telecommunication protocols.\3\ The Exchange noted that the
increased fees would allow it to recoup costs arising from upgrades it
was making to the hardware supporting the ports to Field Programmable
Gate Array (``FPGA'') technology.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange
increased the fee assessed under Rule 7015(b) for a FIX Trading Port
from $550 per port, per month, to $575 per port, per month. The
Exchange also increased the fee assessed under Rule 7015(g) for an OUCH
Port from $550 per port pair, per month to $575 per port pair, per
month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74829 (April 29,
2015), 80 FR 25745 (May 5, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-042).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange had anticipated purchasing and installing FPGA
hardware by May 2015, however, NASDAQ encountered an unanticipated
delay in implementation. As a consequence, the Exchange was unable to
implement the upgraded hardware in May; however, the increased fees
assessed to recoup costs arising from the upgrade remain in place.
NASDAQ does not believe that it is appropriate to assess the increased
fees under Rules 7015(b) and (g) in the absence of the FPGA hardware
upgrade, which, as noted, was the basis for increasing the fees.\5\
Accordingly, NASDAQ is proposing to revert the fees assessed under
Rules 7015(b) and (g) to their reduced levels prior to the fee
increase, and retroactively apply the lower fees for the months of
April, May and June 2015. Once NASDAQ is prepared to implement the FPGA
hardware upgrade, it will file a separate rule change proposal with the
Commission to adjust the fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that reverting the fees assessed for FIX and
OUCH ports under Rules 7015(b) and (g), respectively, back to their
prior levels and retroactively applying those lower fees is reasonable
because NASDAQ has not provided the upgraded hardware to date, the cost
of which was the basis for increasing the fees under Rules 7015(b) and
(g). In addition, applying the lower fees will allow NASDAQ to keep the
fee increase in line with its realized capital and operating
expenditures, which have not increased as a result of the delayed
implementation of the upgrade. The Exchange believes that the proposed
reduction of the fees to their prior levels and retroactive application
thereof is both equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory
because it will apply uniformly to all market participants that
subscribe to FIX and OUCH ports based on the number of such ports
subscribed. Accordingly, such market participants will be assessed the
fees in place prior to the increase and will continue to have the same
hardware supported by those fees.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange believes that the proposal is irrelevant to competition
because it is not driven by, and will have no impact on, competition.
Specifically, the Exchange is reverting fees to their prior, lower
levels and applying them retroactively in light of delays in
implementing upgrades to NASDAQ systems, the cost of which was the
basis for fee increase. Reverting the fees to their lower levels will
keep the fees assessed in line with the Exchange's expenditures at this
juncture associated with upgrading to FPGA hardware. As such, the
Exchange does not believe the proposed change will have any impact on
competition, as market participants will be assessed the same fee for
their FIX and OUCH ports with the same hardware that was in place prior
to the fee increase.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative before 30 days from the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\10\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the

protection of investors and the public interest. Such waiver will allow
the Exchange to immediately return the fees to the lower levels that
existed before SR-NASDAQ-2015-042 and retroactively apply the lower
fees so that market participants will not experience a fee increase in
the absence of the FPGA hardware upgrade, the cost of which was the
basis for the fee increase. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing with the Commission.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or 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-NASDAQ-2015-067 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-NASDAQ-2015-067. 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 filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
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-NASDAQ-2015-
067, and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16861 Filed 7-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 210 (Monday, October 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 75396]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26190]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP17-52-000]

Breitburn Operating LP v. Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC;
Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on October 24, 2016, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and section 5 of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717d (2009), Breitburn Operating LP (Complainant)
filed a formal complaint against Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC
(Respondent) alleging that, Respondent: (1) Unduly discriminated
against Complainant by unilaterally requiring its natural gas supplier
to pay both the Western Division and Market Area rates while similarly
situated shippers paid only the Western Division rate and (2)
unlawfully charged and collected a rate under section 4 of the NGA
without Commission authorization, all as more fully explained in the
complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that a copy of the complaint has been
served on the contacts for the Respondent.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 14, 2016.

    Dated: October 25, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26190 Filed 10-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart EE) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart EE)

EPA ICR 1678.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0326

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for the regulations published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EE were
proposed on March 11, 1994 and promulgated on December 15, 1994.  These
regulations apply to the following magnetic tape manufacturing
operations located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP):
solvent storage tank, mix preparation equipment, coating operation,
waste handling device, and condenser vent in solvent recovery commencing
construction or reconstruction after March 11, 1994.  Exceptions include
research or laboratory facilities, and coating operations that produce a
quantity of magnetic tape that is one percent or less of total
production.  This information is being collected to assure compliance
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EE.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports.  Owners, or operators also are
required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative.  These notifications, reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance and are required of all sources subject to
NESHAP.

Any owner, or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state, or local
authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regional office.

Approximately six sources currently are subject to the standard, and it
is estimated that no (zero) additional sources per year will become
subject to the regulation in the next three years.  It is assumed that
three coating lines are to be constructed at existing sources over the
next three years, creating one new source per year.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the currently active
Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of
Clearance.”

	The “Affected Public” are private sector businesses, or other
for-profits that manufacture magnetic tape.  The burden to the
“Affected Public” may be found in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden
and Cost: NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR part
63, subpart EE).  The burden to the “Federal government” is
attributed entirely to work performed by Federal employees, or
government contractors, and may be found in Table 2: Average Annual EPA
Burden: NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR part
63, subpart EE).

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 standards of performance for each category, or subcategory
of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants.  These
standards are applicable to new, or existing sources of hazardous air
pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.
In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require
any owner, or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C)
install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit
procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with
such procedures, or methods, at such locations, at such intervals,
during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall
prescribe); (E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production
variables, or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with
Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from magnetic tape
manufacturing operations cause, or contribute to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
Therefore, NESHAP for this source category were promulgated at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart EE.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The control of emissions of HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing
operations requires not only the installation of properly designed
equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment.
Emissions of methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone,
xylene and ethyl benzene, and magnetic particles containing chromium
dioxide and cobalt compounds from magnetic tape manufacturing operations
are the result of operation of the facilities.  The subject standards
are achieved by the capture of methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, methyl
isobutyl ketone, xylene and ethyl benzene, and magnetic particle
emissions using carbon absorbers, incinerators, or condensers, or
reduction using reduced HAP coating mix.  The notifications required in
the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency, or delegated
authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the
regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to
check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and
operated and the regulations are being met.  Performance test reports
are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial
capability to comply with the emission standard, and serve as a record
of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.  Each
compliance emission monitor (CEM) shall record the inlet and outlet
concentrations when determining percent efficiency if this is applied to
the control device.  Thermal incinerators and catalytic incinerators
require thermocouples to measure the minimum combustion temperature and
temperature across the catalyst bed as established as site-specific
operating parameters.  Each thermocouple calibration must be verified,
or replaced every three months.  The semiannual reports are used for
problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance,
and for compliance determinations.  The information generated by the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this
ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the
NESHAP continue to operate the control equipment in compliance with the
regulation.  Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are
necessary to ensure compliance with these standards, as required by the
Clean Air Act.  The information collected from recordkeeping and
reporting requirements also is used for targeting inspections, and is of
sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The recordkeeping and reporting requested are required under 40 CFR part
63, subpart EE.

3(a)  Nonduplication

 If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the information
is sent directly to the delegated state, or local Agency.  If a state,
or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the
Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state, or local
agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required
by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

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

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (74 FR 38004) on July 30, 2009.
No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal
Register.

3(c)  Consultations

During a previous renewal of this ICR, the EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) conducted a review and discussions with
industry during the Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Residual Risk
Assessment.  EPA is required to perform residual risk assessments of
technology-based standards and to revise them as necessary, taking into
account developments in practices, processes and control technologies,
no less frequently than every 8 years.  In this instance, EPA determined
that no revision was necessary.  Results from the Magnetic Tape
Manufacturing Residual Risk Assessment were used in preparation of this
ICR.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of
detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and
noncompliance would decrease.

3(e)  General Guidelines

None of these reporting, or recordkeeping requirements violates any of
the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

 	These standards require affected facilities to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
with the Part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations
on which the permit program is based.  Also, the retention of records
for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a
source and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the
appropriate level of enforcement action.  Historically, EPA has found
that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending
beyond the five years.  EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst
violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of records if records
were retained for less than five years.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any 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 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contains sensitive
questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC and NAICS Codes

The respondents of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
owners, or operators of magnetic tape manufacturing operations.

Standard	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

40 CFR part 63, subpart EE	3695	334613 (Magnetic and Optical Recording
Media)

40 CFR part 63, subpart EE	2675	322226 (Die-cut Paper and Paperboard and
Cardboard)

4(b)  Information Requested

(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that is recorded and/or reported is required by 40
CFR part 63, subpart EE.

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports

Notification of intent to construct or reconstruct	63.5(b), 63.9(b),
63.707(a)

Notification and report of construction date	63.9(b)(4), 63.707(a)

Notification of anticipated startup	63.9(b)(4), 63.707(a)

Actual startup notification	63.9(b)(4), 63.707(a)

Notification of applicability of the standard	63.9(b)(2)-(3), 63.707(a),
(b), (c)

Develop startup, shutdown, malfunction plan, submit reports	63.6(e)(3),
63.10(d)(5), 63.707(a), 63.707(i)

Develop quality control plan for continuous monitoring systems (CMS)
63.8(d), 63.707(a)

Notification and report of performance tests and results	63.7(b),
63.8(e), 63.9(e), (g), 63.10(d)(2), (e)(2), 63.707(a)

Report of when exceeds HAP usage cutoff or when area source becomes
major	63.9(b), 63.9(h), 63.707(j)

Notification and report of compliance status	63.9(h)(2)-(3), 63.707(a)

Notification and report for waiver application	63.7(h), 63.707(a)

Semiannual reports of no excess emissions	63.10(e)(3), 63.707(a), (i)

Quarterly reports of monitoring exceedances and excess emissions
63.10(e)(3), 63.707(a), (i)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Five-year retention of records	63.10(b)(1), 63.706(a), (h)

Records of monitored values, maintenance, startup, shutdown, malfunction
63.10(b)(2), 63.10(c), 63.6(e), 63.706(a)

Records of the freeboard ratio	63.10(b)(2), 63.706(b)

Records of CMS maintenance, calibration	63.8(c), 63.8(d)(3),
63.10(b)(2), 63.10(c), 63.706(a)

Records of performance tests	63.10(b)(2), 63.705, 63.706(a)

Records of material balance calculation	63.10(b)(2), 63.706(a), (d)

Records of HAP usage	63.10(b)(2), 63.706(e)

Electronic Reporting

Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way, e.g., inlet and outlet
concentrations when determining percent efficiency.  Although personnel
at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring
equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with
monitoring and recordkeeping.  In addition, some regulatory agencies are
setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report
electronically which is reducing the reporting burden.  However,
electronic reporting systems still are not widely used by the regulatory
agencies.  It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the
respondents use electronic reporting.

(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CEM for volatile organic
compound (VOC) inlet/outlet concentration to measure efficiency of
control device, and thermocouples to measure minimum combustion
temperature and temperature across catalyst bed for site-specific
operating parameters.  Maintain records of coating mix HAP concentration
and measure freeboard ratio.

Perform initial performance test, EPA Method 24 for VOC content in
coatings, EPA Method 18 or EPA Method 25A to determine HAP or VOC
concentrations of air exhaust streams, EPA Method 22 to determine
visible emissions, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of 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.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5.  The Information Collected -- Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
excess emissions reports, startup, shutdown, malfunction plan, and
quality control plan for CMS required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect
the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used by
the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the
emission standard.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are
tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.
The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check
on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS, which is
operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  AFS is the EPA
database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance
and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and
government-owned facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air
pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory
agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its
delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner,
or operator for five years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

Previous ICR renewals stated: “There are no small businesses affected
by this regulation at present, and no small businesses are expected to
become subject to the regulation in the next three years.”  However,
according to review of the Final Rule (59 FR 64596):

The small business administration’s size standards were used to
identify 3 facilities out of the 14 regulated facilities as being a
small business [i.e., 21 percent].  Due to the significant impacts
expected to be experienced by one of the small facilities, a regulatory
flexibility analysis was conducted to assess the feasibility of
providing additional flexibility to small businesses complying with the
regulation.

This ICR renewal assumes that 21 percent of the current estimated number
of affected facilities, or approximately 1 facility, may be a small
entity.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost:
NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EE).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed
under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept
of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate,
specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to
this information collection are mandatory.

The 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.

	6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated at 3,396
person-hours.  These hours are based on an Agency review and discussions
with the industry during initiation of the Magnetic Tape Manufacturing
Residual Risk Assessment; Agency studies and background documents from
the development of the regulation; Agency knowledge and experience with
the NESHAP program; and the previously approved ICR.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates: $114.49 per hour for Executive,
Administrative, and Managerial labor; $98.20 per hour for Technical
labor, and $48.53 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
September, 2009, “Table 2. Civilian workers, by Occupational and
Industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, “Total
compensation.”  The rate has been increased by 110 percent to account
for the benefit packages available to those employed by private
industry.

Managerial	$114.49 ($54.65 + 110%)

Technical	$98.20 ($46.47 + 110%)

Clerical	$48.53 ($22.98 + 110%)

(ii)  Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

This section covers the costs associated with all types of continuous
monitoring equipment (e.g., CEMS and continuous parameter monitors).
The type of industry costs associated with the information collection
activity in the subject standards are both labor costs which are
addressed elsewhere in this ICR, and the costs associated with
continuous monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time costs
when a facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation
and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitors and
other costs such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents 	(D)

Total Capital/ Startup Cost,

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Total enclosure	$11,000	1	$11,000	0	0	0

VOC CEM	0	0	0	$8,000	3	$24,000

Thermocouples	0	0	0	$2,000	6	$12,000

The total Capital/Startup costs for this ICR are $11,000.  This is the
total of column D in the above table.

The total Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs for this ICR are
$36,000.  This is the total of column G.

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the
addition of the capital/startup costs and the annual operation and
maintenance costs.  The average annual cost for capital/startup and
operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of
the ICR is estimated to be $47,000.  The continuous monitoring costs
that are included in this section consist only of those capital/startup
and O&M costs that a source incurs as a result of the standard.  Some
continuous monitoring costs may not be included in this section.  For
instance, if a particular industry typically utilizes a control device
that must have a continuous monitor (e.g., temperature, pressure drop,
etc.) to function properly, and the recordation of additional
measurements beyond the minimum are required by the standard, then there
is no capital/startup or O&M cost, but there is a labor cost to record
the additional readings.  Such a cost would not appear in this section,
but in the industry burden Section 6(d) below.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of
the reported information.  The EPA compliance and enforcement program
includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the
respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the
publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $2,038 [see Table 2 in Section 6(e)].  This cost is
based on the average hourly labor rates below:

Managerial	$62.27   (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 + 60%)

Technical	$46.21   (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 + 60%)

Clerical	$25.01   (GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2010
General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates
have been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages
available to government employees.  Details upon which this estimate is
based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden: NESHAP for Magnetic
Tape Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart EE), below.

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

Based on our research for this ICR, there are approximately six existing
sources currently subject to the standard.  It is estimated that no
(zero) additional sources per year will become subject to the regulation
in the next three years.

Number of respondents is calculated using the following table which
addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	1	6	0	1	6

2	1	6	0	1	6

3	1	6	0	1	6

Average	1	6	0	1	6

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown
above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of
this ICR is six.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Number of New Respondents	(B)

Number of Reports for New Sources	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents	(D)

Number of Reports for Existing Sources	(F)

Number of Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(AxB)+(CxD)+F

1	4	6	2.2	0	17.2

The number of Total Annual Responses is 17 (rounded).

	The total annual labor costs are $319,607.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost:
NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EE).

Note that the total annual capital and O&M costs to the regulated entity
are $47,000.  These costs are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii),
Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the
respondents appear below.  The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 200
(rounded) hours per response.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in the estimation methodology of labor hours in this
ICR compared to the previous ICR.  This is due to two considerations: 1)
the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years; and 2) the growth rate
for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent.  Therefore, the
labor hours in the previous ICR reflect the current burden to the
respondents and are reiterated in this ICR.  However, there is an
apparent increase of one labor hour in this ICR compared to the previous
ICR, because this ICR carries two decimal places in calculations within
Table 1.  The previous ICR presented calculation results rounded to a
whole number.

The increase in cost to respondents and the Agency is due to labor rate
adjustments to reflect rates for fiscal year 2009.  This increase is not
due to any program changes.  Labor rates reflected in the previous ICR
were based on fiscal year 2003.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 200 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 valid OMB
Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed at 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 Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0532.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used to obtain a
copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to
access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents are
also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the docket center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-OECA-2009-0532 and OMB Control Number 2060-0326 in any
correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Assumptions:

a)	This ICR uses the following labor rates: Managerial $114.49 ($54.52 +
110%); Technical $98.20 ($46.76 + 110%); and Clerical $48.53 ($23.11 +
110%).  These rates are from the United States Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2009, Table 2. Civilian workers,
by Occupational and Industry group.  The rates are from column 1, "Total
compensation".  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account
for the benefit packages available to those employed by private
industry.  This ICR assumes that Managerial hours are 5 percent of
Technical hours, and Clerical hours are 10 percent of Technical hours.

b)	This cost was incurred during the first year.

c)	Hours associated with the initial performance test include
preparation of a site-specific test plan.  Hours for performance test
method audits are estimated as 6 percent of the performance test hours.
No facility is expected to conduct testing for the air pollution control
device (APCD) and CEMs.

d)	Assumes 20 percent of sources will have to be retested (equals zero).

e)	It is projected that, on the average, new coating lines will be added
at the rate of one per year.  These coating lines will be located at
existing facilities which will already be meeting the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the standard.  Also, additional emission
points are likely to be tied into the existing APCD.  Therefore, new
compliance tests for the APCD and continuous monitors will not be
necessary.  However, a new total enclosure would be built and must be
tested.

f)	All facilities using VOC continuous emission monitors (CEMs) will
have to perform quarterly audits of monitors, estimated at 3 facilities.

g)	No facilities are expected to conduct an initial performance test.

h)	No facilities are expected to be required to report on status, or
develop a startup, shutdown, malfunction plan, quality control plan for
continuous monitoring systems (CMS), or record system.

i)	No existing area sources are expected to exceed the HAP usage cutoff
or become a major source.

j)	These reports will include data based on CMS performance and/or
material balance results.  It is assumed that 90 percent of the
facilities in this source category will have no excess emission:
reporting will therefore be semiannual  Ten percent of the facilities in
this source category will have excess emissions; these facilities will
need to report quarterly each year.  All 6 facilities subject to the
control requirements will be submitting reports.

k)	Activities that must be implemented at all facilities include
maintaining a 75 percent freeboard ration in wash sinks, the use of a
closed system for flushing fixed lines, and the use of a closed system
for particulate transfer.  A record system will need to be developed to
maintain records associated with the freeboard ratio, performance tests,
notifications, and CMS QA/QC program.

l)	All facilities subject to the control requirements of the standard
will be keeping records.

m)	All but one of the 6 facilities subject to the rule will operate a
CMS, as defined in Section 63.2 of the proposed General Provisions.  The
one facility that will not operate a CMS has only one control device and
will perform a materials balance to show compliance.

Assumptions:

a)	This ICR uses the following labor rates: Managerial $62.27 (GS-13,
Step 5, $38.92 + 60%); Technical $46.21 (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 + 60%);
and Clerical $25.01 (GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 + 60%).  These rates are from
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 2010 General Schedule, which
excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates have been increased by 60
percent to account for the benefit packages available to government
employees.  This ICR assumes that Clerical hours are 10 percent of
Technical hours and Managerial hours are 5 percent of Technical hours.

b)	Assumes 10 percent of the number of tests conducted are attended by
EPA.

c)	Assumes that 20 percent fail the initial performance tests and
retest.

d)	Assumes that one new coating line will be added per year.  This line
will be at an existing facility.

e)	The notification of the applicability of the standard for existing
sources has already occurred.

f)	Based on one facility conducting test, including retest.

g)	Assumes no facilities require notification.

h)	Assumes that EPA will review no startup, shutdown, malfunction plans
and CMS quality control plans.

i)	The number of noncompliance reports and reports of no excess
emissions correspond to the respondents per year reported in Table 1
(column D) multiplied by the number of occurrences per year reported in
Table 1 (column B).

j)	One existing facility is expected to be below the solvent usage
cutoff.

k)	No existing area sources are expected to exceed the HAP usage cutoff
or become area sources.

l)	Assumes all waiver applications have been submitted.

 PAGE

 PAGE   13

Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Magnetic Tape
Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EE)

(Continued)

Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Magnetic Tape
Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EE)

Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden: NESHAP for Magnetic Tape
Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EE)