[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25727-25729]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10400]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74830; File No. SR-DTC-2015-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Acknowledgment
of End-of-Day Net-Net Settlement Balances by Settling Banks

April 29, 2015.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on April 15, 2015, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') 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 by DTC. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of proposed revisions to the DTC
Settlement Service Guide (``Guide'') to provide that any Settling Bank
that does not timely acknowledge its end-of-day

net-net settlement balance \3\ or notify DTC of its refusal to settle
for one or more Participants for which it is the designated Settling
Bank, would be deemed to have acknowledged its end-of-day net-net
settlement balance.\4\ DTC would also make other changes to the Guide
as set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The end-of-day net-net settlement balance for each Settling
Bank reflects: (i) A net credit amount due to the Settling Bank from
DTC, (ii) a net debit amount due from the Settling Bank to DTC, or
(iii) a zero balance so that no payment is due to or from the
Settling Bank. In accordance with the timeframes set forth in the
Guide, DTC's end-of-day funds settlement process begins with the
posting by DTC of ``final settlement figures'' at approximately 3:45
p.m. [sic] each Business Day unless extended.
    \4\ Terms not otherwise defined herein have the meaning set
forth in the DTC Rules (the ``Rules''), available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this rule filing is to propose a rule change to
mitigate a risk to DTC in settlement relating to a Settling Bank's
failure to take the action required to: (i) Acknowledge its end-of-day
net-net settlement balance, or (ii) notify DTC of a refusal to settle
for any Participant for which it is the designated Settling Bank, by
the Acknowledgment Cutoff Time (as defined below).
Background
    The DTC end-of-day net settlement structure depends upon the use of
Settling Banks.\5\ Each Participant must designate a Settling Bank to
settle on its behalf. Any Participant that is a bank may settle for
itself.\6\ A Settling Bank that settles for other Participants must
acknowledge its end-of-day net-net settlement balance for the group of
Participants for which it settles, or notify DTC if it refuses to
settle for any Participant for which it is the designated Settling
Bank, by the later of 4:15 p.m. [sic] and the time that is 30 minutes
after Settling Bank end-of-day net-net settlement balances are first
made available by DTC (``Acknowledgment Cutoff Time'').\7\ Therefore,
DTC expects by the Acknowledgment Cutoff Time that each Settling Bank
that settles for other Participants will affirmatively acknowledge its
end-of-day net-net settlement balance, or notify DTC if it refuses to
settle on behalf of one or more Participants for which it is the
designated Settling Bank. If the Settling Bank notifies DTC that it
refuses to settle for a Participant, DTC will recalculate the Settling
Bank's net-net settlement balance by excluding the net settlement
balance of the Participant for which the Settling Bank refused to
settle and DTC will advise the Settling Bank accordingly.\8\ The
Settling Bank must then immediately respond to DTC to acknowledge its
revised net-net settlement balance (``Adjusted Balance'') and may not
refuse to settle for any other Participant on that day. After the
Acknowledgment Cutoff Time and any adjustments, DTC will prepare a file
to be submitted to the Federal Reserve's National Settlement Service
(``NSS'') reflecting the net debits or credits from and to all Settling
Banks. DTC then utilizes NSS to transmit to the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York the file to debit or credit the Settling Banks' Fed accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Please see the Guide at pp. 17-18, available at http://
www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/service-guides/
Settlement.pdf for an overview of the end-of-day net settlement
process.
    \6\ See Rule 9(B).
    \7\ A Settling Bank that settles only for itself is not required
to provide an acknowledgement. No Settling Bank, whether it settles
for only itself or for others, may refuse to settle its own net
settlement balance.
    \8\ No Participant has the right to refuse to settle its net
settlement balance. Any Participant for which its designated
Settling Bank has refused to settle on its behalf remains obligated
to DTC for the payment of any net debit balance and must make
another arrangement to timely pay that amount by Fedwire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC needs certainty to complete settlement. If the Settling Bank
does not respond to DTC with either an acknowledgment of its end-of-day
net-net settlement balance or notification of a refusal to settle for a
Participant for which it is the designated Settling Bank, this
introduces uncertainty with respect to timely completion of settlement.
Proposal
    To promote settlement certainty, DTC is proposing to treat a
Settling Bank that fails to timely provide its acknowledgement of its
end-of-day net-net settlement balance or notify DTC of its refusal to
settle for one or more Participants for which it is the designated
Settling Bank, as having acknowledged its end-of-day net-net settlement
balance for the purpose of settlement processing. DTC proposes to
modify the Guide to provide that a Settling Bank that: (i) Fails to
affirmatively acknowledge its end-of-day net-net settlement balance, or
(ii) does not notify DTC of its refusal to settle on behalf of a
Participant or Participants for which it is the designated Settling
Bank, by the Acknowledgement Cutoff Time would be deemed to have
acknowledged its end-of-day net-net settlement balance. The Settling
Bank's balance would then in the ordinary course of settlement
processing, be debited from or credited to its designated Fed Account
through the NSS process. Likewise, DTC proposes that the Guide provide
that a Settling Bank that fails to immediately upon receipt acknowledge
its Adjusted Balance, if any, would be deemed to have acknowledged its
Adjusted Balance and the Adjusted Balance would then in the ordinary
course of settlement processing, be debited from or credited to its
designated Fed Account through the NSS process.
    DTC maintains flexibility to allow for a Settling Bank to request
extra time if the Settling Bank has a problem relating to its
connectivity with DTC or another good faith reason that it cannot
affirmatively acknowledge or refuse, so long as the Settling Bank
notifies DTC accordingly at or before the Acknowledgement Cutoff Time,
or, in the case of an Adjusted Balance, it notifies DTC immediately
where it is unable to affirmatively acknowledge. In this regard, the
Guide would be updated to clarify that the Settling Bank is required to
notify DTC of its request via a dedicated DTC Settlement phone
``hotline'' prior to the Acknowledgment Cutoff Time. As it does today,
DTC would attempt to contact the Settling Bank if it does not receive a
response in the form of: (i) An acknowledgment or refusal prior to the
Acknowledgment Cutoff Time, or (ii) as applicable, an immediate
acknowledgment of an Adjusted Balance.\9\ In addition, the Guide would
be updated to clarify that each Settling Bank must ensure that it
maintains accurate contact details with DTC so that DTC may contact the
Settling Bank regarding settlement issues. Settling Banks must update
any contact details by contacting their DTC Relationship Manager.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DTC uses the most recent contact information provided by the
Settling Bank to its DTC Relationship Manager for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, DTC would revise the Guide to: (i) Clarify that a
Settling Bank that settles only for itself is not required

to acknowledge its net settlement balance; (ii) state that the existing
flat fee charged for a Settling Bank's failure to timely settle its
balance would additionally apply to a Settling Bank's failure to: (A)
Affirmatively acknowledge its net-net settlement balance, or (B) notify
DTC of its refusal to settle for one or more Participants for which it
is the designated Settling Bank, by the Acknowledgment Cutoff Time;
(iii) clarify the fees chargeable to a Participant for a failure to
settle; (iv) delete references to a Settling Bank's failure to timely
settle its settlement balance from being referred to as a ``failure to
settle'' and remove references to related procedures as being
``failure-to-settle'' procedures, as this use of the terminology could
be confused with an individual Participant's failure to meet its
settlement obligation; (v) clarify Settling Bank and settlement
processing timeframes as set forth in the Guide; (vi) consolidate text,
as applicable, for consistency and to eliminate duplication; (vii)
apply initial capitalization as appropriate for the terms
``Participant'' and ``Settling Bank'' where they are used as defined
terms; and (viii) remove references to Participant Terminal System
(PTS) functions, which are no longer used for this service.
Implementation
    The effective date of the proposed rule change would be announced
via a DTC Important Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change would reduce delays in the settlement
process by allowing DTC to collect net debits and release net credits
within scheduled timeframes despite the failure of a Settling Bank to
affirmatively acknowledge its end-of-day net-net settlement balance or
notify DTC of its refusal to settle for a Participant for which it is
the designated Settling Bank on a timely basis. Therefore, the proposed
rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 17A(b)(3)(F)
\10\ of the Act, which requires that the rules of the clearing agency
be designed, inter alia, to promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

(C) Clearing Agency'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 yet
been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by DTC.

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-DTC-2015-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2015-003. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTCC's
Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-DTC-2015-003 and should be
submitted on or before May 26, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10400 Filed 5-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


The Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Applying Aluminum Parts --

Leachable Zinc Data

Facility Name	City	State	Sample Date	Sample ID	Duplicate Indicator Constituent Name	Leachable Actual or Calculated	Analytical Method Leachable Result	Units	Leachable Non-Detect Indicator	Leachable Detection Limit mg/L	Leachable Detection Limit Data Qualifier Description

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Comp-1	N	zinc	actual

6.08	mg/L

	?	Unknown

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Comp-2	N	zinc	actual

6.21	mg/L

	?	Unknown

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Comp-3	N	zinc	actual

5.42	mg/L

	?	Unknown

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Comp-4	N	zinc	actual

5.87	mg/L

	?	Unknown

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Dup-00101 (Comp-2)	Y	zinc	actual

6.07	mg/L

	?	Unknown

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

MEP Analysis 1	N	zinc	actual

4.02	mg/L

0.02

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-1	N	zinc	actual

2.89	mg/L

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-2	N	zinc	actual

1.8	mg/L

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-3	N	zinc	actual

1.71	mg/L

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-4	N	zinc	actual

2.62	mg/L

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-5	N	zinc	actual

3.43	mg/L

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-6	N	zinc	actual

3.05	mg/L

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-7	N	zinc	actual

3.84	mg/L

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #1	N	zinc	actual

5.26	mg/L

0.38

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #2	N	zinc	actual

7.02	mg/L

0.28

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #2 Duplicate	Y	zinc	actual

5.97	mg/L

0.24

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #3	N	zinc	actual

4.63	mg/L

0.3

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #4	N	zinc	actual

4.11	mg/L

0.35

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #5	N	zinc	actual

5.63	mg/L

0.28	J	The associated value is an estimated quantity.

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #6	N	zinc	actual

4.94	mg/L

0.35

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #1	N	zinc	actual

0.32	mg/L

0.25

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #2	N	zinc	actual

0.32	mg/L

0.25

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #2 Duplicate	Y	zinc	actual

0.36	mg/L

0.25

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #3	N	zinc	actual

0.32	mg/L

0.25

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #4	N	zinc	actual

0.65	mg/L

0.25

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #5	N	zinc	actual

0.47	mg/L

0.25

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #6	N	zinc	actual

0.87	mg/L

0.25

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-1	N	zinc	actual

9.82	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-2	N	zinc	actual

2.56	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-3	N	zinc	actual

17	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-4	N	zinc	actual

1.98	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-5	N	zinc	actual

2.89	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-6	N	zinc	actual

2.3	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-7	N	zinc	actual

14.8	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-1	N	zinc	actual

13.2	mg/L

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-2	N	zinc	actual

1.02	mg/L

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-3	N	zinc	actual

17.3	mg/L

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-4	N	zinc	actual

17.9	mg/L

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-5	N	zinc	actual

23.9	mg/L

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-6	N	zinc	actual

7.2	mg/L

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-7	N	zinc	actual

0.94	mg/L

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-1	N	zinc	actual

3.89	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-2	N	zinc	actual

3.49	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-3	N	zinc	actual

2.57	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-4	N	zinc	actual

2.94	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-5	N	zinc	actual

3.78	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-6	N	zinc	actual

4.11	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-7	N	zinc	actual

3.92	mg/L

	B	(Description not provided)

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-1	N	zinc	actual

46.6	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-2	N	zinc	actual

63.2	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-3	N	zinc	actual

58	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-4	N	zinc	actual

62.2	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-5	N	zinc	actual

66.5	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-6	N	zinc	actual

71.7	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-7	N	zinc	actual

74.1	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	10/15/2002	10738.01	N	zinc	actual

1.52	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	10/31/2002	10904.01	N	zinc	actual

28.64	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/25/2002	11180.01	N	zinc	actual

32.77	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/6/2002	11327.01	N	zinc	actual

6.85	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/6/2002	11327.02	N	zinc	actual

11.91	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/16/2000	3880.01	N	zinc	actual Method 6020	17.811	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/16/2000	3880.02	N	zinc	actual Method 6020	27.8114	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/16/2000	3880.03	N	zinc	actual Method 6020	15.8548	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/16/2000	3880.04	N	zinc	actual Method 6020	21.8018	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/16/2000	3880.05 (Dup of 3880.01)	Y	zinc	actual	Method 6020	15.8491	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/1/2001	7454.01	N	zinc	actual

5.55	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/1/2001	7454.02	N	zinc	actual

5.6	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/1/2001	7454.03	N	zinc	actual

7.25	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/1/2001	7454.04	N	zinc	actual

7.62	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	11/1/2001	Dup of 7454.01	Y	zinc actual	Method 6020	5.28	mg/L

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-01	N	zinc actual	Method 6020	0.659	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-02	N	zinc actual	Method 6020	0.882	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-03	N	zinc actual	Method 6020	0.816	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-01	N	zinc	actual Method 6020	1.425	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-02	N	zinc	actual Method 6020	3.941	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-03	N	zinc	actual Method 6020	3.922	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	10/16/2003	S14816.01	N	zinc	actual

2.13	mg/L

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-01	N	zinc actual

0.293	mg/L

	JX	Estimate, ne of the two OWEP metals results (TCLP or soxhlet) was non-detected. The OWEP concentration was calculated by assuming that the sample quantitation limit for the non-detected result was a worst-case contribution.

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-02	N	zinc actual

0.229	mg/L

	JX	Estimate, ne of the two OWEP metals results (TCLP or soxhlet) was non-detected. The OWEP concentration was calculated by assuming that the sample quantitation limit for the non-detected result was a worst-case contribution.

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-03	N	zinc actual

0.195	mg/L

	JX	Estimate, ne of the two OWEP metals results (TCLP or soxhlet) was non-detected. The OWEP concentration was calculated by assuming that the sample quantitation limit for the non-detected result was a worst-case contribution.

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-04	N	zinc actual

0.152	mg/L

	JX	Estimate, ne of the two OWEP metals results (TCLP or soxhlet) was non-detected. The OWEP concentration was calculated by assuming that the sample quantitation limit for the non-detected result was a worst-case contribution.

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	6/9/1998	LOR-S02-01	N	zinc actual

3.67	mg/L

	JX	Estimate, ne of the two OWEP metals results (TCLP or soxhlet) was non-detected. The OWEP concentration was calculated by assuming that the sample quantitation limit for the non-detected result was a worst-case contribution.

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	6/9/1998	LOR-S02-02	N	zinc actual

4.865	mg/L

	JX	Estimate, ne of the two OWEP metals results (TCLP or soxhlet) was non-detected. The OWEP concentration was calculated by assuming that the sample quantitation limit for the non-detected result was a worst-case contribution.

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-01	N	zinc	actual

28.61	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-02	N	zinc	actual

25.672	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-03	N	zinc	actual

6.945	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-04	N	zinc	actual

6.396	mg/L

	J	Estimate

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-01	N	zinc	actual

3.575	mg/L

	X	One of the OWEP extractions was ND, final result conservatively calculated using the sample quantitation limit in the final calculation of mobile metals concentration.

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-02	N	zinc	actual

4.034	mg/L

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-03	N	zinc	actual

3.346	mg/L

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-04	N	zinc	actual

2.797	mg/L

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-05	N	zinc	actual

3.524	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	1/30/2001	2001 Verification 1	N zinc	actual

270	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	7/17/2001	2001 Verification 10	N zinc	actual

1.1	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	8/15/2001	2001 Verification 11	N zinc	actual

0.67	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	10/15/2001	2001 Verification 12	N zinc	actual

45	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/5/2001	2001 Verification 13	N zinc	actual

2.6	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	1/30/2001	2001 Verification 2	N zinc	actual

220	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/22/2001	2001 Verification 3	N zinc	actual

15	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/22/2001	2001 Verification 4 Composite	N	zinc	actual

21	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	3/29/2001	2001 Verification 5	N zinc	actual

16	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	3/29/2001	2001 Verification 6	N zinc	actual

2.3	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	4/23/2001	2001 Verification 7	N zinc	actual

29	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	5/16/2001	2001 Verification 8	N zinc	actual

4.6	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	6/18/2001	2001 Verification 9	N zinc	actual

0.56	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/12/2002	2002 Verification 1	N zinc	actual

71	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	4/11/2002	2002 Verification 2	N zinc	actual

67	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	6/24/2002	2002 Verification 3	N zinc	actual

92	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	8/7/2002	2002 Verification 4	N zinc	actual

88	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	10/9/2002	2002 Verification 5	N zinc	actual

8.6	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/9/2002	2002 Verification 6	N zinc	actual

110	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	3/7/2003	2003 Verification 1	N zinc	actual

21	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	6/6/2003	2003 Verification 2	N zinc	actual

51	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	9/19/2003	2003 Verification 3	N zinc	actual

3.5	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/3/2003	2003 Verification 4	N zinc	actual

37	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	5/5/1999	99-06 WWTP #1	N	zinc actual

0.3	mg/L

0.2

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	9/20/1999	99-20 WWTP #3	N	zinc actual

0.61	mg/L

0.01

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	9/20/1999	99-21 WWTP #4	N	zinc actual

0.5	mg/L

0.01

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/28/2000	COMPOSITE	N	zinc actual

1.8	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/21/2000	COMPOSITE	N	zinc actual

41	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	8/1/2000	COMPOSITE	N	zinc	actual

56	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	11/28/2000	COMPOSITE	N	zinc actual

4.4	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	3/5/1998	FC-1	N	zinc	actual

52	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	3/5/1998	FC-3	N	zinc	actual

9.2997	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	3/5/1998	FC-4	N	zinc	actual

32.7342	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/13/2000	SAMPLE #1 COMPOSITE	N zinc	actual

7.8	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/13/2000	SAMPLE #2 COMPOSITE	N zinc	actual

10	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/13/2000	SAMPLE #3 COMPOSITE	N zinc	actual

8.9	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/13/2000	SAMPLE #4 COMPOSITE	N zinc	actual

4.7	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4103788/255-008 - RB-4	N	zinc	actual

0.67	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU<PHONE_NUMBER>-007 - RB-3	N	zinc	actual

0.57	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4108183/255-002 - RB-3-Dup	Y	zinc	actual

0.55	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4108183/255-003 - RB-1	N	zinc	actual

0.56	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4117098/255-004 - RB-2	N	zinc	actual

0.74	mg/L

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/3/1998	WWTPS I	N	zinc	actual

0.27	mg/L

0.01

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/3/1998	WWTPS II	N	zinc	actual

0.24	mg/L

0.01

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-1	N	zinc	actual

1.26	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-2	N	zinc	actual

1.49	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-3	N	zinc	actual

0.64	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-4	N	zinc	actual

5.43	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-5	N	zinc	actual

0.36	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-6	N	zinc	actual

0.69	mg/L

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-7	N	zinc	actual

0.82	mg/L

n 	143

	MAXIMUM	270

	MEAN	17.029021

	MEDIAN	4.6

	Std. Dev.	34.813151

	90th Percentile	51.8

	50th Percentile	4.6


? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS>   DISTRIBUTION Page _ 1_ of _ 1 Project Name: 304( m)

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Outgoing Call Date: 5/ 23/ 05 Time: 12: 30 PM Company Name: Sterling Chemical Contact Name: Jeff Barnwell Phone No.: ( 409) 942 3461 Name: Meghan Kandle Eastern Research Group GENERAL SUBJECT : Chlorine Discharges Reported to TRI TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN I called Mr. Bill Morrison of Sterling Chemical on Monday, May 23 regarding chlorine releases reported to TRI for 2002. Sterling's reported chlorine discharge was 45,000 lb/ yr, which accounts for 77 percent of the chlorine reported to TRI by OCPSF facilities. Mr. Morrison transferred me to Mr. Jeff Barnwell. Mr. Barnwell returned my call at 12: 30 PM. I asked Mr. Barnwell about the chemical state of the chlorine releases reported to TRI for 2002. Mr. Barnwell said that the chlorine is measured as Free Available Chlroine, and that the reported release is based on maximum concentrations. The facility's discharge is sampled weekly for chlorine. At the end of each month, the facility selects the highest measured chlorine concentration and multiplies it by the flow rate. Mr. Barnwell also verified that the release reported to TRI for 2002 was correct.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15800-15801]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06866]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2014-1074]

Imposition of Conditions of Entry for Certain Vessels Arriving to
the United States From Yemen--Additional Ports

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Conditions of entry are imposed on vessels arriving in U.S.
waters from foreign ports that do not maintain effective anti-terrorism
measures. In 2012, the Coast Guard announced the imposition of
conditions of entry on vessels arriving from all ports in Yemen, except
for the Ash Shihr Terminal, the Port of Hodeidah, and the Balhalf LNG
Terminal. Today, the Coast Guard announces that conditions of entry
will be imposed on vessels arriving from the Ash Shihr Terminal and the
Port of Hodeidah. The 2012 exception remains in place for vessels
arriving from the Balhalf LNG Terminal.

DATES: The policy announced in this notice will become effective April
8, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Michael Brown, International Port Security Evaluation
Division, United States Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
information about viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826, or toll free 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The authority for this notice is 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46 U.S.C. 70110,
and DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II (97.f). As delegated, section
70110 authorizes the Coast Guard to impose conditions of entry on
vessels arriving in U.S. waters from ports that the Coast Guard has not
found to maintain effective anti-terrorism measures.
    In 2012,\1\ the Coast Guard determined that all but three ports in
the Republic of Yemen were not maintaining effective anti-terrorism
measures, that Yemen presented significant risk of introducing
instruments of terror into international maritime commerce, and that
Yemen possessed significant deficiencies in its legal regime,
designated authority oversight, access control, and cargo control.
Therefore, the Coast Guard announced the imposition of conditions of
entry on vessels arriving from any Yemeni port except the Ash Shihr
Terminal, the Port of Hodeidah, or the Balhalf LNG Terminal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FR 53901 (Sep. 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard no longer finds that the Ash Shihr Terminal and the
Port of Hodeidah are maintaining effective anti-terrorism measures.
Therefore the Coast Guard is removing the exception for those ports.
Vessels arriving from the Balhalf LNG Terminal will continue to be
excepted from the conditions of entry outlined in this notice.
    Beginning April 8, 2015, the conditions of entry shown in Table 1
will apply to any vessel that visited a non-excepted Yemeni port in its
last five port calls.

     Table 2--Conditions of Entry for Vessels Visiting Yemeni Ports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          No.                           Each vessel must:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................  Implement measures per the vessel's security
                          plan equivalent to Security Level 2 while in a
                          port in the Republic of Yemen. As defined in
                          the ISPS Code and incorporated herein,
                          ``Security Level 2'' refers to the ``level for
                          which appropriate additional protective
                          security measures shall be maintained for a
                          period of time as a result of heightened risk
                          of a security incident.''
2......................  Ensure that each access point to the vessel is
                          guarded and that the guards have total
                          visibility of the exterior (both landside and
                          waterside) of the vessel while the vessel is
                          in ports in Yemen.
3......................  Guards may be provided by the vessel's crew;
                          however, additional crewmembers should be
                          placed on the vessel if necessary to ensure
                          that limits on maximum hours of work are not
                          exceeded and/or minimum hours of rest are met,
                          or provided by outside security forces
                          approved by the vessel's master and Company
                          Security Officer. As defined in the ISPS Code
                          and incorporated herein, ``Company Security
                          Officer'' refers to the ``person designated by
                          the Company for ensuring that a ship security
                          assessment is carried out; that a ship
                          security plan is developed, submitted for
                          approval, and thereafter implemented and
                          maintained and for liaison with port facility
                          security officers and the ship security
                          officer.''
4......................  Attempt to execute a Declaration of Security
                          while in a port in Yemen;
5......................  Log all security actions in the vessel's
                          security records; and
6......................  Report actions taken to the cognizant Coast
                          Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) prior to
                          arrival into U.S. waters.
7......................  In addition, based on the findings of the Coast
                          Guard boarding or examination, the vessel may
                          be required to ensure that each access point
                          to the vessel is guarded by armed, private
                          security guards and that they have total
                          visibility of the exterior (both landside and
                          waterside) of the vessel while in U.S. ports.
                          The number and position of the guards has to
                          be acceptable to the cognizant COTP prior to
                          the vessel's arrival.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following countries currently do not maintain effective anti-
terrorism measures and are therefore subject to conditions of entry:
Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Liberia, Madagascar, Nigeria, Sao Tome and
Principe, Syria, Timor-Leste, Venezuela, and Yemen. This list is also
available in a policy notice available at https://homeport.uscg.mil
under the Maritime Security tab; International Port Security Program
(ISPS Code); Port Security Advisory link.

    Dated: March 17, 2015.
Charles D. Michel,
Vice Admiral, USCG, Deputy Commandant for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-06866 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14813-14814]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0001]

Public Workshop on Minimal Residual Disease; Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
workshop to provide a forum for discussion of the use of minimal
residual disease (MRD) as a biomarker for evaluating new drugs for the
treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The meeting is
cosponsored with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and will be
the first in a series of workshops intended to bring together
scientific and advocacy communities and the pharmaceutical and in vitro
diagnostic device industries to help develop processes and procedures
to qualify MRD as a biomarker of efficacy and/or response to treatment
in a group of hematological malignancies.

DATES:  Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on April 18,
2012, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great
Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
    Contact Person: Christine Lincoln, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg.
22, rm. 6413, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Clinical data from patients with certain subtypes of acute and
chronic leukemia suggest that MRD can be established as a surrogate
endpoint for clinical trials and drug approval. This public workshop
will provide a forum for discussion among scientific and advocacy
communities and the pharmaceutical and in vitro diagnostic device
industries of issues related to the qualification (validation) of MRD
as a biomarker (i.e., a measurable characteristic that is predictive of
disease outcome) that can be used to determine efficacy and/or response
in evaluation of new drugs for the treatment of ALL. Although the data
related to the prognostic significance of MRD are most extensive in the
pediatric population, and are currently used to stratify patients for
risk-adjusted therapy, MRD may also be pertinent to subtypes of adult
ALL; hematologists who treat adult patients have been invited to
participate, as well as hematologists who treat pediatric patients.
Topics to be discussed at the workshop include: (1) Evaluation of the
prognostic biomarker data that is currently available to support the
qualification of MRD as a marker of response and/or efficacy in both
pediatric and adult ALL; (2) the specificity, sensitivity, and
comparability of techniques that might be used in a standardized
fashion to measure MRD; (3) the performance characteristics and
proficiency assessment of current technology platforms; and (4) the
design and analysis of the clinical trials needed to establish the use
of postinduction MRD as an alternative endpoint for approval of new
drugs to treat ALL.
    This workshop is part of a series in which FDA's Office of
Hematology and Oncology Products will explore the utility of MRD as a
surrogate endpoint in ALL (including ALL that has recurred), chronic
lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Given the
diverse etiologies, pathophysiologies, and natural histories of these
diseases and current practice standards, separate consideration of MRD
as a surrogate endpoint in each disease is warranted. FDA is seeking
representation from both North American and European academic
investigators as well as cooperative groups at the workshops. The
workshops for CLL and AML are tentatively scheduled for October 10 and
11, 2012, respectively.

II. Attendance and Registration

    FDA encourages patient advocates, representatives from industry,
consumer groups, health care professionals, researchers, and other
interested persons to attend this public workshop.
    Registration: There is no registration fee for the public workshop.
To register electronically, please use the following Web site: http://
www.zoomerang.com/

Survey/WEB22EJ4HRZLW9. (FDA has verified the Web site address, but we
are not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web site after
this document publishes in the Federal Register.)
    Seats are limited and conference space will be filled in the order
in which registrations are received. Onsite registration will be
available to the extent that space is available on the day of the
conference.
    Information regarding special accommodations due to a disability,
visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Bldg. 1.

    Dated: March 8, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-6038 Filed 3-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: September 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 52098]
[DOCID:fr12se07-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 459-176]

Union Electric Company, dba AmerenUE; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

August 31, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed an application for non-project use of
project lands and waters at the Osage Project (FERC No. 459) and has
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed non-project
use. The non-project use of project lands and waters is located at mile
marker 3.5 of the Osage Arm of the Lake of the Ozarks, at the mouth of
Jackson Branch Cove. The Osage Project is located in Benton, Camden,
Miller, and Morgan Counties, Missouri.
    In the application, Union Electric Company, dba AmerenUE requests
Commission approval to authorize Atlantis Island LLC to construct 17
docks with 374 slips at the Atlantis Island condominiums. The EA
contains Commission staff's analysis of the probable environmental
impacts of the proposal and concludes that approving the licensee's
application, with staff's recommended environmental measures, would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The EA is attached to a Commission order titled ``Order Modifying
and Approving Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters,'' which was
issued August 23, 2007, and is available for review and reproduction at
the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street,
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``elibrary''

link. Enter the project number (prefaced by P-) and excluding the last
three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-17923 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47296-47297]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21893]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0020]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 11 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate
CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in
one eye.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on August 25, 2017. The
exemptions expire on August 25, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    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 http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On July 25, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 11 individuals requesting an exemption from vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the
public (82 FR 34564). The public comment period ended on August 24,
2017, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person:

    Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each
eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected
to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant
binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or
without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in
the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize
the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and
amber.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows applicants to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their
driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The
qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in the July 25, 2017, Federal
Register notice (82 FR 34564) and will not be repeated in this notice.
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 11
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, enucleated eye, pars planitis, prosthetic
eye, and retinal detachment. In most cases, their eye conditions were
not recently developed. Nine of the applicants were either born with
their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The two
individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had
it for a range of six to nine years. Although each applicant has one
eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a
doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks
necessary to operate a CMV.
    Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a
valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting

State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability
to operate a CMV, with their limited vision in intrastate commerce,
even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate
commerce. We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience
and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to
drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like
interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the
interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards.
Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more
pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways.
Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required
because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax
visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate
driving conditions.
    The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited
vision in careers ranging for three to 40 years. In the past three
years, one driver was involved in a crash, and no drivers were
convicted of moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants achieved a
record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and
(b) by a certified Medical Examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver
must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to
the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and
(3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or
keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 11 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:

Michael T. Allen (AZ)
Robert F. Anneheim (NC)
Ray C. Atkinson (TN)
Joseph Cuthbert (PA)
Kent W. Fulp (NC)
Edward P. Hutton (ID)
Stephen McLaren (TN)
Robert E. Richards (ME)
James R. Robinette (VA)
James Tucker (TN)
Alvin White (TN)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following
occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of
the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of
safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation
of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives
of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: October 2, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-21893 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
September 7, 2017
Final Economic Impact Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Publicly Owned Treatment Works Risk and Technology Review

 Introduction
   This report is the economic impact analysis (EIA) for the final Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) Risk and Technology Review (RTR) standards. These standards further amend the POTW National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Subpart VVV, which was originally promulgated in October, 1999 (67 FR 57572) and initially amended in October, 2002 (67 FR 64742). These standards set regulations based on the assessed Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) available at the time. Final promulgation of these amended standards as a result of this RTR is scheduled to occur under court order by October 16, 2017. There are estimated to be 13 facilities subject to the POTW NESHAP, which specifies requirements for existing POTW as well as new or reconstructed POTW, with subcategorization for POTW that do ("Group 1") and do not ("Group 2") accept industrial wastewater regulated by another NESHAP. Group 1 POTW can be thought of as acting as a control for the industries they accept NESHAP regulated wastewater from.
   The total costs for this rule is estimated to be $790, which is incurred through facilities familiarizing themselves with the rule. This cost will be incurred in the year following promulgation of the rule. There are no additional emission control costs or additional emission reductions associated with this rule. With the exception of the addition of a requirement for initial notification, the EPA is not finalizing any changes to the requirements for existing Group 1 and Group 2 POTW. In addition, revisions to the requirements for new or reconstructed Group 1 facilities are not anticipated to incur additional costs and there are no revisions for new or reconstructed Group 2 facilities.
   Costs of the Final Rule
   The final rule revises the current standard to establish a requirement that existing Group 1 (2 of the 13 affected entities) and Group 2 POTW (11 of the 13 affected entities) submit an initial notification of applicability to the rule one year after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. As all 13 facilities have already complied with this requirement and do not need to re-notify the EPA, the only costs for these facilities are those related to familiarizing themselves with the rule amendments. These costs are estimated to be $61 per affected facility, or $790 for all 13 facilities. However, it should be noted that, based on public comment, additional POTW may become subject and incur the cost of an initial notification of applicability to the EPA. This cost is estimated to be $240 per facility.
   Requirements for new or reconstructed Group 1 POTW are revised so that instead of complying with either the applicable NESHAP for which they are acting as control or complying with this rule, whichever is more stringent, they must comply with both rules. However, the EPA does not anticipate that there will be any new Group 1 facilities constructed in the next 3 years, therefore there are no additional costs associated with this revision.
   There are no new practices, processes or control technologies identified for new or reconstructed POTW in the Group 2 subcategory, therefore there are no revisions to those requirements in the current POTW NESHAP.
   Net employment impacts resulting from this final rule will be negligible. Additionally, there are no significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE) as a result of this rule.
   The costs of the final rule encompass only the costs associated with initial familiarization of this rule by the 2 existing Group 1 and 11 existing Group 2 sources. The estimated costs are $61 per source. The nationwide total reporting costs attributable to the affected entities for this rule are therefore estimated to be $790. The recordkeeping and reporting burden for the EPA is estimated to be $0.
 Economic Impact Estimates
   The national economic impact assessments of the rule are insignificant. The one-time cost of $61 per facility is 0.001 percent, or less, of reported sewer service charges in 2015 for each of the affected entities. Therefore, the estimated national economic impacts from the rule are considered to be minimal.
   EPA estimated the labor necessary to comply with the notification requirement as a result of this rule and converted this number to full-time equivalents (FTEs) by dividing by 2,080 (40 hours per week multiplied by 52 weeks). The one-time labor requirement estimated for complying with the final option is 0.004 FTEs. EPA notes that this type of FTE estimate cannot be used to make assumptions about the specific number of people involved or whether new jobs are created for new employees. This suggests that net employment impacts (that is, all employment impacts of any kind) resulting from this final rule will be negligible.
   A small business screening analysis was conducted to determine if any of the identified affected entities are small entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA defines small publicly owned entities as those serving a population of 50,000 or less. As shown in table 1, none of the 13 potentially affected entities are considered small. Therefore, there are no significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE) from this final rule.

Table 1. Population served by the affected entities (2014)
                                   Facility
           Population of the government entity or population served
Hopewell Regional Waste Water Treatment Facility
                                    67,000
New York City Department of Environmental Protection Coney Island Water Pollution Control Plant
                                  8.5 million
New York City Department of Environmental Protection North River Water Pollution Control Plant
                                  8.5 million
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority Bayport Facility
                                  4.6 million
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority 40-Acre Facility
                                  4.6 million
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority Washburn Tunnel Facility
                                  4.6 million
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District Jones Island Waste Water Treatment Plant
                                  1.1 million
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District South Shore Waste Water Treatment Plant
                                  1.1 million
American Bottoms Regional Waste Water Treatment Facility
                                    67,000
Orange County Sanitation District - Plant 1
                                  2.5 million
Orange County Sanitation District - Plant 2
                                  2.5 million
Albuquerque Southside Water Reclamation Facility
                                    600,000
Omaha Papillion Creek WWTP
                                    450,000


PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1.0 Identification of the Information Collection ( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection.

" Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating NESHAP." ( ICR number 2045.01)

( b) Short Characterization.

Respondents are owners or operators of 65 existing automobile and light duty truck surface coating facilities. Respondents subject to national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) are required by law ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to submit one time notifications and one time reports on compliance status and performance test results. Respondents also must develop and implement a Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan and make semiannual reports if an event is inconsistent with the plan. In addition, respondents must develop work practices plans to minimize emissions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) from mixing and storage of coatings, and from cleaning and equipment purging activities.

Semiannual reports are required for periods of operation during which measured emissions exceed an applicable limit, control device operating parameters are outside of the established ranges, or deviations from approved work practice plans occur. General recordkeeping requirements applicable to all NESHAP require records of applicability determinations; test results; startup, shutdown,

or malfunction events; deviations; performance test reports,

monitoring records, and all other information needed to determine compliance with the applicable standard.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection.

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish NESHAP for new or existing major sources or area sources that reflect: ... the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of [ HAPs] that is achievable taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any nonair quality health and environmental reduction, and energy requirements. [ section 112( d)( 2)] 2 This level of control is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT). Certain records and reports are necessary for the Administrator to: ( 1) confirm the compliance status of major sources, identify any non major sources not subject to the standards, and identify new or reconstructed sources subject to the standards; and ( 2) ensure that the MACT standards are being achieved. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the Act ( 42 U. S. C. 7414)

and set out in the NESHAP General Provisions.

( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data.

The information will be used by Agency enforcement personnel to: ( 1) identify existing major sources and new or reconstructed major sources subject to the standards; ( 2) ensure that MACT is being properly applied; ( 3) ensure that the emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained on a continuous basis; and ( 4) ensure that work practices to minimize HAP emissions are implemented. Based on the reported information, EPA can decide which plants, records, or processes should be inspected.

3. Nonduplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria ( a) Nonduplication.

A computer search of the Federal Information Locator System indicated that, with the exception of the existing New Source Performance Standard ( NSPS) for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart MM), there are no similar information requests being carried out by the Federal government. A similar search of EPA's ongoing ICR's revealed no duplication of information gathering efforts. The NSPS and certain reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information required by the standards. In such cases, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be provided to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the standards.

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

This section is not applicable because this is a rule related ICR.

( c) Consultations.

The proposed standard was developed under EPA's MACT 3 Partnership program for regulatory development. Under this approach, EPA works with State regulatory agencies and, where applicable, tribal governments, to discuss major issues while working in a cooperative effort with industry and professional organizations to identify data needs and to collect, exchange, and analyze the information and data. For example, on this project,

several meetings with State partners ( including environmental agency representatives from Michigan and Louisiana) and industry representatives ( including representatives of all potentially affected entities, as well as the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers) were held in the period leading to proposal. No major problems regarding monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting procedures were encountered. The non EPA persons consulted prior to proposal of the standards are identified in Table 1.

TABLE 1. PERSONS CONSULTED ON THE PROPOSED INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES Contact Organization Telephone Number Val Ughetta Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ( 202) 326 5523 Robert J. Nelson National Paint and Coatings Association ( 202) 462 6272 Bob Fedorko General Motors ( 313) 556 7620 Mary Snow Cooper DaimlerChrysler Corporation ( 248) 512 1104 ( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

If the relevant information were collected less frequently,

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

( e) General Guidelines.

None of the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5 are being exceeded.

( f) Confidentiality.

All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B

Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, 4 September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

( g) Sensitive Questions.

This section is not applicable because this ICR does not involve matters of a sensitive nature.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested ( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes. Respondents are owners or operators of new or existing automobile and light duty truck surface coating facilities. These facilities are primarily located at automobile assembly plants. The primary SIC code for the respondents affected by the standards is 3711. The NAICS codes for the respondents affected by the standards are 336111, 336112, and 336211.

( b) Information Requested.

( i) Data items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements.

Attachment 1, Source Data and Information Requirements, summarizes the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

( ii) Respondent activities. The respondent activities required by the standards are identified in Table 2 and introduced in Section 6( a).

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

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

( b) Collection Methodology and Management.

This section is not relevant to this information collection request.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility.

There are no small entities subject to the proposed standard.

( d) Collection Schedule.

Information contained in the one time only reports will be entered into the Compliance Data System operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Data obtained during periodic visits by Agency personnel from records maintained by the respondents will be tabulated and published for internal EPA use in enforcement and compliance programs. A 5 schedule for collection of information and publication of data is not applicable because reports and recordkeeping are triggered by action of the respondents.

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

The annual burden estimates for reporting and recordkeeping are presented in Table 2. These numbers were derived from estimates based on EPA's experience with other standards.

( b) Estimating Respondent Costs.

This rule requires continuous monitoring of parameters to ensure compliance with operating limits related to capture systems and control devices. These monitors ( e. g. fan motor controls and thermocouple/ data logger systems) are integral parts of the capture and control systems and are considered to be included in the price of these systems, as opposed to separate capital costs. Since this rule does not require electronic data submittal, the only capital costs associated with reporting and recordkeeping activities are expected to be associated with performance testing by outside parties. It is assumed that automobile and light duty truck surface coating facilities that will be required to install new capture and control equipment to comply with this rule will contract a testing company to provide sampling and analytical services required to demonstrate that emission control systems achieve the required emission reductions. Estimates for these costs were taken from the ESD Regulatory Procedures Manual ( Volume X, Sec. 2.2, Table 4.

Burden of Performance Tests and Continuous Monitoring System ( CMS)

Demonstrations. October 1990.)

The information collection activities for sources subject to the standards are presented in Table 2. Because much of the data are already collected by respondents or required by existing law,

minimal respondent development costs are associated with the information collection activities for the standards. Labor rates and associated costs are based on the U. S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation report ( March 1999, Table 12), and estimated hourly 6 rates ( for private industry, manufacturing) are as follows:

technical at $ 30.00, management at $ 40.00, and clerical at $ 18.00.

The BLS costs include fringe benefits.

( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

Because the information collection requirements were developed as an incidental part of standards development, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection requirements. Because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents are required under the General Provisions for the MACT standards, no operational costs will be incurred by the Federal Government. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the Compliance Data System, with the result that no Federal costs can be directly attributed to the ICR.

Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is a part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program,

and, therefore, is not attributable to the ICR. The only costs that the Federal government will incur are user costs associated with the analysis of the reported information, as presented in Table 3. Labor rates and associated costs are based on the U. S.

Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation report ( March 1999, Table 12), and estimated hourly rates ( for private industry, manufacturing) are as follows: technical at $ 30.00, management at $ 40.00, and clerical at $ 18.00. The BLS costs include fringe benefits.

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

The EPA estimates that 65 facilities will provide the one time notifications and semi annual reports during the period covered by this ICR. The total labor burden is provided in Tables 2A, 2B and 2C and is estimated as 906 hours, 1615 hours and 97,789 hours in the first, second, and third years following promulgation, or an average of 514 hours/ year per facility. The total cost of reporting and recordkeeping, given in Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C is $ 26,617, $ 47,455, and $ 2,874,154 in the first, second, and third years following promulgation, or an average of $ 15,119/ year per 7 facility.

( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables.

( i) Respondent tally. The bottom line respondent burden hours and costs, presented in Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C are calculated by adding person hours per year down each column for technical,

managerial, and clerical staff, and by adding down the cost column.

The estimated total nationwide burden for regulated major sources in the first three years of the automobile and light duty truck surface coating NESHAP would be an estimated 33,437 total labor hours per year at a cost of $ 982,742 per year for major sources.

The total annual hours are 514 hours/ year per facility.

The total annualized capital and startup cost reflects the estimated capital costs for equipment required to comply with recordkeeping and reporting activities associated with the major source provisions of the proposed standards. There are not expected to be any capital costs resulting from this rule for new or existing major sources except those associated with performance testing by outside parties ( as described in Section 6b), because operating parameter monitoring devices are an integral part of the existing capture and control devices, and there are no capital costs associated with the recordkeeping used to demonstrate compliance through the use of compliant coatings. Costs associated with performance testing for existing sources were assumed to occur in the third year following promulgation, and have been accounted for as one time labor costs.

The total annual estimated operating and maintenance costs ( O& M), were calculated based on the estimated storage, filing,

photocopying, and postage costs for the 313 estimated total annual responses associated with the provisions of the automobile and light duty truck surface coating NESHAP. Storage, filing, and photocopying costs per response were estimated as 1 hour of clerical labor at a rate of $ 18.00/ hr per response for multiple copies. First class postage was estimated at $ 3.50 per response for mailing of a one pound package to a regulatory agency. The total storage, filing, photocopying, and postage cost per response was $ 21.50, for an annual estimated total of $ 6730.

( ii) The Agency tally. The bottom line Agency burden hours 8 and costs, presented in Tables 3A, 3B, and 3C are calculated as in the respondent table, by adding person hours per year down each column for technical, managerial, and clerical staff, and by adding down the cost column. In this case, total cost is the sum of this total salary cost and total travel expenses for tests attended.

The total annual hours are 2724 hours/ year for the first three years following promulgation. The total annual cost is $ 81,009/ year for the first three years following promulgation.

( iii) Variations in the annual bottom line. This section does not apply since no significant variation is anticipated.

( f) Reasons for Change in Burden.

This section does not apply because this is a new ICR.

( g) Burden Statement The average annual respondent burden for each of the 65 automobile and light duty truck surface coating facilities is estimated as 514 hours. This estimate includes time for preparing and submitting notices, gathering information ( e. g., conducting emission performance tests), submitting reports, and maintaining records.

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.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 9 accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing a respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to Ms Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division ( Mail Code 2822T ), Office of Environmental Information, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460 0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention:

Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 2045.01 in any correspondence.

PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in data collection associated with this regulation. 10 TABLE 2A. ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINAL STANDARD FIRST YEAR AFTER PROMULGATION Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ a 1. Applications N/ A 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 0 3. Acquisition, Installation, and Utilization of Technology and Systems 435 1 435 1 435 21.75 43.5 14,703.00 4. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions 4 1 4 1 4 0.2 0.4 135.20 B. Required activities Initial oxidizer performance test 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Repeat oxidizer performance test 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Initial capture performance test 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Repeat capture performance test 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Emission rate limit compliance determination 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Startup, shutdown, malfunction plan 40 1 40 1 40 2 4 1,352.00 C. Create information See 4B D. Gather existing information See 4B E. Write report Initial notification 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 67.60 Notification of constr./ reconstr. 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 67.60 Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ a 11 Notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 67.60 Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 67.60 Compliance status notification 4 1 4 1 4 0.2 0.4 135.20 Performance test notification 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Performance test report 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Report of monitoring deviations 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Report of no excess emissions 4 1 4 1 4 0.2 0.4 135.20 Startup, shutdown, malfunction report 8 1 8 1 8 0.4 0.8 270.40 Semi annual Report 24 1 24 1 24 1.2 2.4 811.20 5. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read instructions See 4B B. Plan activities N/ A C. Implement activities N/ A D. Develop record system N/ A E. Time to enter information Records of all info. required by standards 10 26 260 1 260 13 26 8,788.00 F. Time to train personnel N/ A G. Time to adjust existing ways to comply with previously applicable requirements N/ A H. Time to transmit or disclose information 0.25 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.025 0.05 16.90 Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ a 12 I. Time for audits N/ A TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST 787.5 39.375 78.75 26,617.50 a Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 30, management at $ 40, and clerical at $ 18.

N/ A = Not Applicable. 13 TABLE 2B. ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINAL STANDARD SECOND YEAR AFTER PROMULGATION Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ a 1. Applications N/ A 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 0 3. Acquisition, Installation, and Utilization of Technology and Systems 435 1 435 1 435 21.75 43.5 14,703.00 4. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions 4 1 4 1 4 0.2 0.4 135.20 B. Required activities Initial oxidizer performance test 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Repeat oxidizer performance test 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Initial capture performance test 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Repeat capture performance test 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Emission rate limit compliance determination 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Startup, shutdown, malfunction plan 40 1 40 1 40 2 4 1,352.00 C. Create information See 4B D. Gather existing information See 4B E. Write report Initial notification 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 67.60 Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ a 14 Notification of constr./ reconstr. 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 67.60 Notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 67.60 Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 67.60 Compliance status notification 4 1 4 1 4 0.2 0.4 135.20 Performance test notification 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Performance test report 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Report of monitoring deviations 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Report of no excess emissions 4 2 8 1.5 12 0.6 1.2 405.60 Startup, shutdown, malfunction report 8 2 16 1.5 24 1.2 2.4 811.20 Semi annual Report 24 2 48 1.5 96 4.8 9.6 3,244.80 5. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read instructions See 4B B. Plan activities N/ A C. Implement activities N/ A D. Develop record system N/ A E. Time to enter information Records of all info. required by standards 10 52 520 1.5 780 39 78 26,364.00 F. Time to train personnel N/ A G. Time to adjust existing ways to comply with previously applicable requirements N/ A Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ a 15 H. Time to transmit or disclose information 0.25 1 0.5 2 1 0.05 0.1 33.80 I. Time for audits N/ A TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST 1404 70.2 140.4 47,455.20 a Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 30, management at $ 40, and clerical at $ 18.

N/ A = Not Applicable. 16 TABLE 2C. ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINAL STANDARD THIRD YEAR AFTER PROMULGATION Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ a 1. Applications N/ A 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 0 3. Acquisition, Installation, and Utilization of Technology and Systems 435 1 435 63 27405 1370.25 2740.5 926,289.00 4. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions 4 1 4 63 252 12.6 25.2 8,517.60 B. Required activities Initial oxidizer performance test 280 1.14b 319.2 57 18194.4 909.72 1819.44 614,970.72 Repeat oxidizer performance test 280 1.14 319.2 5.7c 1819.44 90.972 181.944 61,497.07 Initial capture performance test 215 1.14 245.1 57 13970.7 698.535 1397.07 472,209.66 Repeat capture performance test 215 1.14 245.1 5.7c 1397.07 69.8535 139.707 47,220.97 Emission rate limit compliance determination 40 1 40 63 0 0 0 0.00 Startup, shutdown, malfunction plan 40 1 40 63 2520 126 252 85,176.00 C. Create information See 4B D. Gather existing information See 4B E. Write report Initial notification 2 1 2 63 126 6.3 12.6 4,258.80 Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ a 17 Notification of constr./ reconstr. 2 1 2 63 126 6.3 12.6 4,258.80 Notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 63 126 6.3 12.6 4,258.80 Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 63 126 6.3 12.6 4,258.80 Compliance status notification 4 1 4 63 252 12.6 25.2 8,517.60 Performance test notification 2 1.14 2.28 57 129.96 6.498 12.996 4,392.65 Performance test report 0d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Report of monitoring deviations 8 2 16 6.5 104 5.2 10.4 3,515.20 Report of no excess emissions 4 2 8 59 472 23.6 47.2 15,953.60 Startup, shutdown, malfunction report 8 1.03 8.24 65 535.6 26.78 53.56 18,103.28 Semi annual Report 24 1.03 24.72 65 25.4616 1.27308 2.54616 860.60 5. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read instructions See 4B B. Plan activities N/ A C. Implement activities N/ A D. Develop record system N/ A E. Time to enter information Records of all info. required by standards 10 26.8 268 65 17420 871 1742 588,796.00 F. Time to train personnel N/ A G. Time to adjust existing ways to comply with previously applicable requirements N/ A Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C)

Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Cost,$ a 18 H. Time to transmit or disclose information 0.25 1 0.5 65 32.5 1.625 3.25 1,098.50 I. Time for audits N/ A TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST 85034.13 4251.70658 8503.413 2,874,153.65 a Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 30, management at $ 40, and clerical at $ 18.

b Some respondents will be required to conduct two performance tests.

c Assume 10 percent of tests will be repeated.

d Included in item 4B.

N/ A = Not Applicable. 19 TABLE 3A. ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST TO THE FEDERAL/ STATE GOVERNMENT OF THE FINAL STANDARD FIRST YEAR AFTER PROMULGATION Activity ( A)

Hours per occurrence ( B)

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

Cost, $ a Initial performance test 40 40 0 0 0 0 0.00 Repeat performance test Retesting preparation 4 4 0 0 0 0 0.00 Repeat performance  Retesting 40 40 0 0 0 0 0.00 Litigation 2080 2080 0 0 0 0 0.00 Excess Emissions Enforcement Activities 120 120 0 0 0 0 0.00 Review Startup/ Shutdown Malfunction Plan 20 20 1 20 1 2 676.00 Review Work Practices Plan 20 20 1 20 1 2 676.00 Report Review Notification of applicability Notification of constr./ reconstr.

Notification of anticipated startup Notification of actual startup Notification of special compliance requirements Notification of initial performance test Notification of compliance status Review of initial performance test report Review of repeat performance test report Review of excess emissions report Review of no excess emissions report Review of NESHAP waiver application Review of startup, shutdown, malfunction report 2 2 2 2 N/ A 2 2 8 8 8 2 N/ A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8 8 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 0 0 2 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0 0 0.2 0.2 67.60 67.60 67.60 67.60 67.60 67.60 270.40 0 0 67.4 67.4 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) 64 3.2 6.4 2163.20 Travel Expenses for Tests Attended $ 0.00 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 2163.20 a Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 30, management at $ 40, and clerical at $ 18.

N/ A = not applicable 20 TABLE 3B. ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST TO THE FEDERAL/ STATE GOVERNMENT OF THE FINAL STANDARD SECOND YEAR AFTER PROMULGATION Activity ( A)

Hours per occurrence ( B)

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

Cost, $ a Initial performance test 40 40 0 0 0 0 0.00 Repeat performance test Retesting preparation 4 4 0 0 0 0 0.00 Repeat performance  Retesting 40 40 0 0 0 0 0.00 Litigation 2080 2080 0 0 0 0 0.00 Excess Emissions Enforcement Activities 120 120 0 0 0 0 0.00 Review Startup/ Shutdown Malfunction Plan 20 20 1 20 1 2 676.00 Review Work Practices Plan 20 20 1 20 1 2 676.00 Report Review Notification of applicability Notification of constr./ reconstr.

Notification of anticipated startup Notification of actual startup Notification of special compliance requirements Notification of initial performance test Notification of compliance status Review of initial performance test report Review of repeat performance test report Review of excess emissions report Review of no excess emissions report Review of NESHAP waiver application Review of startup, shutdown, malfunction report 2 2 2 2 N/ A 2 2 8 8 8 2 N/ A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8 8 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 0 0 4 4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.4 67.60 67.60 67.60 67.60 67.60 67.60 270.40 0 0 134.80 134.80 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) 68 3.4 6.8 2290.00 Travel Expenses for Tests Attended $ 0.00 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 2290.00 a Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 30, management at $ 40, and clerical at $ 18.

N/ A = not applicable 21 TABLE 3C. ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST TO THE FEDERAL/ STATE GOVERNMENT OF THE FINAL STANDARD THIRD YEAR AFTER PROMULGATION Activity ( A)

Hours per occurrence ( B)

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

Cost, $ a Initial performance test 40 40 7.2 b 288 14.4 28.8 9,734.40 Repeat performance test Retesting preparation 4 4 0.72 c 2.88 0.144 0.288 97.34 Repeat performance  Retesting 40 40 0.72 c 28.8 1.44 2.88 973.44 Litigation 2080 2080 0.65 d 1352 67.6 135.2 45,697.60 Excess Emissions Enforcement Activities 120 120 6.5 e 780 39 78 26,364.00 Review Startup/ Shutdown/ Malfunction Report 20 20 63 1260 63 126 42,588.00 Review Work Practices Plan 20 20 63 1260 63 126 42,588.00 Report Review Notification of applicability 2 2 63 126 6.3 12.6 4258.8 Notification of constr./ reconstr. 2 2.28 65 148.2 7.41 14.82 5009.16 Notification of anticipated startup 2 2.28 65 148.2 7.41 14.82 5009.16 Notification of actual startup 2 2.28 65 148.2 7.41 14.82 5009.16 Notification of special compliance requirements N/ A Notification of initial performance test 2 2.28 63 143.64 7.182 14.364 4855.032 Notification of compliance status 2 2 65 130 6.5 13 4394 Review of initial performance test report 8 9.12 57 519.84 25.992 51.984 17570.59 Review of repeat performance test report 8 8 5.7 45.6 2.28 4.56 1541.28 Review of excess emissions report 8 8 6.5 52 2.6 5.2 1757.6 Review of no excess emissions report 2 2 58.5 f 117 5.85 11.7 3954.6 22 Review of NESHAP waiver application N/ A Review of startup, shutdown, malfunction report 2 2 65 130 6.5 13 4394 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) 6810.36 340.52 681.04 230190.17 Travel Expenses for Tests Attended ( 1 person x 6.3 plants/ yr x 1 day/ plant x $ 50 per diem) + ($ 400/ round trip x 6.3 round trips/ yr) = $ 2835 TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 2835 + $ 235739 = $ 238,574 a Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 30, management at $ 40, and clerical at $ 18.

b Assume EPA/ State personnel will attend 10 percent of the performance tests at the total of 63 plants ( 0.1 x63 = 6.3).

c Assume 10 percent fail the initial performance test ( 0.1 x 63).

d One plant in 100 will be involved in litigation ( 0.01 x 65 = 0.65).

e Assume 10 percent of the 65 plants ( 6.5) have excess emissions.

f Assume 90 percent of the 65 plants ( 58.5) do not have excess emissions. 23 ATTACHMENT 1 SOURCE DATA AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Requirement Regulation citation General Provisions citation NOTIFICATIONS Applicability 63.3110( b 63.9( b)( 1)( 3)

Anticipated startup 63.3110( a) 63.9( b)( 4)

Commencement of construction 63.3110( a) 63.9( b)( 4)

Actual startup 63.3110( a) 63.9( b)( 4)

Intention to construct/ reconstruct 63.3110( a) 63.9( b)( 4)( 5)

Compliance dates/ extension 63.3110( a) 63.9( c)

Performance test 63.3110( a) 63.9( e)

Compliance status 63.3110( c) 63.9( g)

Alternate monitoring method 63.3110( a) 63.8( f)

REPORTS Initial performance test report 63.5180( b)( 4) 63.10( d)( 2)

Startup, shutdown, malfunction plan/ reports 63.5180( b)( 5) 63.6( e)( 3), 63.9( d)( 5)

Excess emissions or no excess emissions reports 63.5180( b)( 6) 63.10( e)( 5)

Recordkeeping General Provisions general requirements 63.5190( b)( 1)( b)( 3) 63.10( b)( 2)

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan 63.5180( b)( 5) 63.10( b)( 2)

Work Practices plans 63.3094( b)( c) N/ A N/ A= Not applicable.