[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50570]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19419]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92861; File No. SR-DTC-2021-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change To Provide Settlement Services for Transactions
Entered Into Under the Proposed Securities Financing Transaction
Clearing Service of the National Securities Clearing Corporation

September 2, 2021.
    On July 22, 2021, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule
change SR-DTC-2021-014 (``Proposed Rule Change'') pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The Proposed Rule Change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on August 11, 2021.\3\ The Commission has
received no comment letters on the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92572 (August 5, 2021),
86 FR 44077 (August 11, 2021) (SR-DTC-2021-014) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for the Proposed Rule Change
is September 25, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day period for Commission action
on the Proposed Rule Change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the Proposed Rule Change so that it has sufficient time to consider and
take action on the Proposed Rule Change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ and for
the reasons stated above, the Commission designates November 9, 2021 as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve, disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove proposed rule
change SR-DTC-2021-014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19419 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41398-41399]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16497]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14529-000]

City of Berlin, Berlin Water Works; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On June 19, 2013, the City of Berlin, Berlin Water Works, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Ammonoosuc Water Treatment Plant Hydroelectric Project (Project) to be
located on a water supply conduit at the City of Berlin's municipal
water treatment plant (WTP), in Coos County, New Hampshire. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license or exemption application during the
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder
to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1)
Installation of inline

turbine/generator(s), housed in a concrete vault immediately upstream
from an existing pressure reducing value on an existing 16 to 20-inch
diameter cement-transite water main leading to the City's WTP; (2)
piping, valves, control panels, and other appurtenant equipment housed
in the concrete vault; and (3) a two-way net metering system installed
on an existing underground interconnection transmission line leading to
Public Service of New Hampshire's utility line 25WL. The
estimated annual generation of the project would be 51.0 megawatt-
hours. The WTP will use the power produced by the proposed project to
run process equipment, lighting, and fulfill other electrical needs in
the WTP.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Roland Viens, Superintendent, City of
Berlin, Berlin Water Works, 55 Willow Street, Berlin, New Hampshire,
03570; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14529) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: July 2, 2013.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16497 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 115 (Thursday, June 15, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39164-39165]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12809]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0854; Airspace Docket No. 23-AEA-08]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of Class E Airspace; A.P. Hill, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface for A.P. Hill AAF (Fort A.P. Hill), VA, as
instrument approach procedures for this airport no longer exist.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, August 10, 2023. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. FAA Order JO 7400.11G,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments
can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may
also contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it removes Class E airspace in A.P. Hill, VA, as all instrument
approaches have been canceled for A.P. Hill AAF.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA 2023-0854 in the Federal Register (88 FR 21127; April 10, 2023),
proposing to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface for A.P. Hill AAF, A.P. Hill, VA. Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 annually. This document
amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and
effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly
available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These
amendments will be published in the next FAA Order JO 7400.11 update.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by removing Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for A.P. Hill AAF,
A.P. Hill, VA, as instrument approaches no longer exist for this
airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only
affects air traffic

procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances warrant the preparation of an environmental
assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA VA E5 Fort A.P. Hill, VA [Removed]

* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 9, 2023.
Lisa Burrows,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2023-12809 Filed 6-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


TSCA Inventory Status of Nanoscale Substances – General Approach

Purpose

	The approach outlined in this document describes how EPA currently
determines whether a nanoscale substance is a “new” chemical only
for the purposes of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory.
The Agency may use different approaches under its other authorities
(e.g., the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA))
in making regulatory status determinations.  In adopting this approach
under TSCA, EPA is not establishing a precedent on how nanotechnology
issues arising under other EPA programs, other Federal Government
agencies, or other federal statutes will be addressed.

Background

	With the rapid advancement of nanotechnology and the introduction of
nanoscale substances into U.S. commerce, it has become important for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider the extent to
which these substances may be “new chemical substances” under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and thus subject to new chemical
reporting under section 5(a) of TSCA.  All substances, including
nanoscale substances, that meet the TSCA definition of chemical
substance are subject to TSCA.

The TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory, established under section 8(b) of
the Act, is comprised of substances that are considered to be
“existing” in U. S. commerce.  A substance not already included on
the Inventory is considered to be a “new” chemical substance
pursuant to TSCA section 3(9).  Under section 5(a) of TSCA, a person
must submit a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) to EPA at least 90 days before
commencing manufacture or import, for a commercial purpose, of a
chemical substance not on the Inventory, unless the substance is exempt
from reporting under section 5(h) of the Act.  The notification must
include the information described in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D),
(F), and (G) of section 8(a)(2).  After PMN review and upon receipt of a
Notice of Commencement of Manufacture or Import (NOC), a chemical
substance is added to the Inventory and becomes an “existing”
chemical substance.  Certain nanoscale substances that will be
manufactured or imported for commercial purposes are expected to be new
chemical substances and therefore subject to TSCA new chemical reporting
requirements, as are any other new chemical substances.

	EPA does not expect, however, that all nanoscale substances will
qualify as new chemicals under TSCA.  EPA thus intends to determine
whether nanoscale substances are new or existing chemical substances
based on the case-by-case approach that the Agency has historically
applied in determining the Inventory status of chemical substances.

	Note that the principles in this paper are not rules or regulations,
nor do they otherwise impose legally-binding requirements on EPA or the
regulated community.  Rather, this paper informs the public of the
approach EPA has historically taken under TSCA in evaluating whether
chemical substances are new, and further informs the public of EPA’s
intention to follow this approach for nanomaterials that are chemical
substances.  Interested parties will be free to raise questions about
the validity or applicability of these principles and EPA will consider
whether the principles and their application are appropriate in that
context at that time.  Any decision regarding whether a  chemical
substance is a new chemical substance will be made based on the
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

Determination of Whether A Chemical Substance is New or Existing

	Section 3(2)(A) of TSCA defines the term “chemical substance” to
mean “any organic or inorganic substance of a particular molecular
identity….”  Thus, in determining whether a chemical substance is a
new chemical for purposes of TSCA Section 5, or instead is an existing
chemical, EPA determines whether the chemical substance has the same
molecular identity as a substance already on the Inventory.  A chemical
substance with a molecular identity that is not identical to any
chemical substance on the TSCA Inventory is considered to be a new
chemical substance (i.e. not on the  Inventory); a chemical substance
that has the same molecular identity as a substance listed on the
Inventory is considered to be an existing chemical substance.

Molecular Identity of a Chemical Substance

In general, a molecule is the smallest unit of matter that retains all
of its chemical properties.  Molecules that are made up of two or more
atoms of like or different elements are held together by chemical bonds,
with the principal types of chemical bonds being the ionic, covalent,
and metallic bonds.

	 EPA views molecular identity as being based on such structural and
compositional features as the types and number of atoms in the molecule,
the types and number of chemical bonds, the connectivity of the atoms in
the molecule, and the spatial arrangement of the atoms within the
molecule.  EPA considers chemical substances that differ in any of these
structural and compositional features to have different molecular
identities.  For example, EPA considers chemical substances to have
different molecular identities for the purposes of TSCA when they:

have different molecular formulas, i.e., they have the same types of
atoms but a different number of atoms, e.g., ethane (C2H6) and propane
(C3H8), or they have the same number of atoms but different types of
atoms, e.g., bromomethane (CH3Br) and chloromethane (CH3Cl), or they
differ in both the types and numbers of atoms.

have the same molecular formulas but have different atom connectivities,
i.e., they have the same types and number of atoms but are structural
isomers (e.g., n-butane and isobutane) or positional isomers (e.g.,
1-butanol and 2-butanol).

have the same molecular formulas and atom connectivities but have
different spatial arrangements of atoms, e.g., they have the same types,
number, and connectivity of atoms but are isomeric (e.g., (Z)-2-butene
and (E)-2-butene).

have the same types of atoms but have different crystal lattices, i.e.,
they have different spatial arrangements of the atoms comprising the
crystals, e.g., anatase (atoms arrayed tetragonally) and brookite (atoms
arrayed orthorhombically) forms of titanium dioxide.

are different allotropes of the same element, e.g., graphite (carbon
atoms arranged in hexagonal sheets with each atom bonded to three other
atoms in the plane of a given sheet) and diamond (carbon atoms arranged
in a tetrahedral lattice with each atom bonded to four other atoms).

have different isotopes of the same elements.

	Molecules can themselves be arranged or aggregated into particles or
other physical forms of various types, shapes, and sizes with
concomitant physical properties.  EPA does not consider these particles
or physical forms themselves to be different molecules with different
molecular identities, but rather to be aggregates of molecules that have
the same molecular identity, with no chemical bonding between the
molecules.  Consequently, EPA has not treated the mere aggregation of
molecules into particles or varying physical forms to result in
different chemical substances with different molecular identities for
the purposes of TSCA.

	Fundamental to TSCA is the identification of chemical substances as
precisely as practicable for listing on the TSCA Inventory.  Class 1
substances can be represented by a distinct chemical structure and
specific molecular formula.  Class 2 substances, including UVCB
substances (substances of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex
reaction products, and Biological materials), are an extremely broad
category of chemical substances that cannot be represented by unique
chemical structures or, in most cases, by unique molecular formulas.
They can, however, be described using either partly indefinite names
indicating variable structures (e.g., heptene), or names that are
descriptive of complex or poorly defined compositions (e.g., tall-oil
fatty acids), or that include sets of compositional characteristics
(e.g., C15-18 .alpha.-alkenes).  UVCB substance names may also include a
supplemental definition (e.g., pentene, hydroformylation products, with
the supplemental definition “A complex combination of products
produced by the hydroformylation of pentene.  It consists predominantly
of C5 olefins and paraffins, C6 alcohols and aldehydes, and C18 acetals
and boils in the range of approximately 45 degrees C to 290 degrees
C…”).  Class 2 substances that differ in such indefinite, variable,
or complex structures, descriptive compositions, or sets of
compositional characteristics, are considered different chemical
substances with different molecular identities for the purposes of TSCA.

	Since EPA generally has not considered units of matter beyond
molecules, such as physical aggregates, to be reportable to the TSCA
Inventory, EPA has not used particle size to distinguish for Inventory
purposes two substances that are known to have the same molecular
identity.  Under principles of traditional chemistry these different
forms of such substances would not be considered different chemicals.
However, the form in which a chemical is manufactured, processed, used,
or disposed of may play a role in evaluating the risk of a substance and
considering whether to address it in some fashion under TSCA.

TSCA Inventory Determination of Nanoscale Substances

	As stated above, historically, EPA has not used particle size to
distinguish substances that are known to have the same molecular
identity for the purposes of the TSCA Inventory.  In determining whether
a nanoscale substance is a new or existing chemical, the Agency intends
to continue to apply its current Inventory approaches based on molecular
identity, rather than focus on physical attributes such as particle
size.

	New Chemicals

	A chemical substance with a molecular identity that is not identical to
any substance on the TSCA Inventory is considered to be a new chemical
(i.e., not on the Inventory).  A nanoscale substance might not have a
non-nanoscale counterpart with the same molecular identity (e.g.,
nanotubes and carbon fullerenes), or a substance might be found in both
nanoscale and non-nanoscale forms, but if the substance has not been
reported previously to EPA and placed on the Inventory in either form,
it is considered a new chemical.

	A substance of this type would be subject to PMN reporting requirements
regardless of whether it is manufactured or imported in the nanoscale
form or the non-nanoscale form.  When manufacture or importation
commences and the substance is added to the Inventory, the listing is
considered to encompass both nanoscale and non-nanoscale forms of the
substance.  Consequently, subsequent forms of the substance manufactured
or imported, whether nanoscale or macroscale, which have the same
molecular identity, would be considered existing chemical substances.

	Systematic chemical nomenclature conventions may not exist for all
nanoscale substances identified as new chemicals.  In these cases, EPA
will likely need to apply new nomenclature conventions to fully,
uniquely, unambiguously, and consistently identify and name these new
chemical substances for the purposes of the TSCA Inventory.  As with
existing nomenclature conventions, EPA expects that new nomenclature
conventions developed for Inventory listing of these novel substances
will include data elements necessary to describe and distinguish their
unique molecular identities but will not describe different physical
forms (e.g., particle sizes) of these new substances.   In the interim,
EPA intends to describe new chemical substances (including new
substances that exist in nanoscale forms) to the best of its ability for
listing these substances on the Inventory, recognizing that names
assigned to these substances and even their Inventory status may change
once nomenclature conventions are developed.  As necessary, EPA will
provide interim guidance on molecular identity data elements that could
be used by the notifier and the Agency to identify and name these new
chemical substances for listing on the Inventory.

Existing Chemicals

	Under the approach outlined in this paper, a nanoscale substance that
has the same molecular identity as a substance listed on the Inventory
(whether or not reported to the Agency as being manufactured or
processed in nanoscale form) is considered an existing chemical, i.e.,
the nanoscale and non-nanoscale forms are considered the same chemical
substance because they have the same molecular identity.

	EPA’s rationale for considering this group of nanoscale substances to
be existing chemicals is based on the TSCA definition of “chemical
substance.”  Although a nanoscale substance that has the same
molecular identity as a non-nanoscale substance listed on the Inventory
differs in particle size and may differ in certain physical and/or
chemical properties resulting from the difference in particle size, EPA
considers the two forms to be the same chemical substance because they
have the same molecular identity.  The Inventory listing in this case is
considered to represent both the nanoscale and non-nanoscale forms of
the substance and, as such, does not distinguish between two forms
having the same molecular identity that differ only in particle size
and/or physical/chemical properties resulting from the difference in
particle size.

Assistance to Manufacturers and Importers

	In order for manufacturers or importers of nanoscale substances to
determine whether their substances are new or existing chemicals, and
thus whether they are subject to PMN reporting requirements, EPA
encourages companies to contact the New Chemicals Program to arrange a
pre-notice consultation or to submit a request for an Inventory search
under the bona fide intent to manufacture provision in 40 CFR §720.25.
As EPA cannot always judge a priori if a nanoscale substance has a
molecular identity that is identical to a substance listed on the
Inventory, EPA may require certain data on the nanoscale substance in
order to determine whether it is an existing chemical covered by an
existing Inventory listing, or whether it is a new chemical subject to
PMN reporting requirements.

 Certain categories of chemical substances are not subject to TSCA.
Examples include foods and food additives, pesticides, drugs, cosmetics,
tobacco, nuclear material, or munitions.

− (i) any combination of such substances occurring in whole or in part
as a result of a chemical reaction or occurring in nature, and (ii) any
element or uncombined radical.”

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


STANDARD FORM 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR NO. 2044.01  NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS: PLASTIC PARTS AND PRODUCTS SURFACE COATING ( 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART PPPP)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 August 2001 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT: JUSTIFICATIONS 1. Identification of the Information Collection ( a) Title and Number of the Information Collected The title of this information collection request ( ICR) is " Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP): Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating." This is a new ICR that has been assigned Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) ICR No.

2044.01.

( b) Short characterization/ abstract The proposed standards would regulate organic hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) emissions resulting from the surface coating of plastic parts and products. The majority of organic HAP emissions from a facility engaged in plastic parts and products surface coating operations can be attributed to the application of the coating, drying, and curing. The organic HAP that are used in coatings as solvents and carriers are volatilized and emitted during the coating application process and while the coated parts are drying and curing in flash off, drying, and curing areas.

Each owner or operator of a source affected by the proposed standards would be required to submit an initial notification that the source is subject to the standard. Each respondent would submit semiannual compliance reports. Additional records and notifications would depend on how the owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards. The owner or operator of a plastic parts and products surface coating operation that is subject to these proposed standards would be required to control organic HAP by either limiting the organic HAP content of every individual material used in the coating operations ( compliant 2 material option), demonstrating that the source wide organic HAP emissions meet the emission limit ( emission rate without add on controls option), or by using an emission capture and control system to demonstrate that the source wide emissions meet the emission limitation ( emission rate with add on controls option).

The EPA expects that 20 percent of respondents would be able to comply by limiting the organic HAP content of every material used in the surface coating operations ( compliant material option). These respondents would keep records of the materials used and their HAP content to demonstrate compliance. The EPA expects that 80 percent of respondents would comply by demonstrating that the source wide HAP emissions meet the emission limitation ( emission rate without add on controls option or emission rate with add on controls option). Respondents would monitor and record ( typically in a spreadsheet) the monthly consumption of materials, and their HAP contents, and calculate the weighted average organic HAP emissions over the most recent 12 months.

Nineteen of these existing facilities ( about 10% of facilities) already have add on controls and would use the emission rate with add on controls option. They would keep the same records as respondents using the emission rate without addon controls option.

In addition, respondents who choose to use an emission capture and control system would be required to develop a startup shutdown, and malfunction plan and a work practice plan and submit a notification for and conduct the initial add on control device performance test. The EPA expects one new facility will start up per year and will comply by using the emission rate without add on controls option.

All facilities would be required to submit notifications and reports to demonstrate compliance with the rule. These include 3 one time reporting such as the notification of compliance status and semi annual compliance reports.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA needs this information to ensure that HAP emissions are reduced in plastic parts and products surface coating operations. The EPA is required under section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) to regulate emissions of the HAP listed in section 112( b) of the CAA. The major HAP identified by EPA as being emitted from these operations include toluene, methyl ethyl ketone ( MEK), xylenes, and methyl isobutyl ketone ( MIBK).

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from plastic parts and products surface coating operations cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. Consequently, NESHAP for this source category has been developed and are being proposed.

Section 114 of the CAA allows the Administrator to require inspections, monitoring, and entry into facilities to ensure compliance with a section 112 emission standard.

Section 114( a)( 1) specifically states:

" The Administrator may require any person who owns or operates any emission source... who is subject to any requirement of this Act... on a one time, periodic or continuous basis to;

( A) establish and maintain such records;

( B) make such reports;

( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods;

( D) sample such emissions;

( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; 4 ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require."

Certain records and reports are necessary to enable the Administrator to identify sources subject to the standard and to ensure that the standard, which is based on a maximum achievable control technology ( MACT), is being achieved.

( b) Practical Utility/ Users of Collected Information The information would be used by EPA to ensure that the requirements of the proposed plastic parts and products surface coating NESHAP are implemented and are complied with on a continuous basis. Records and reports would be necessary to enable EPA to identify facilities that may not be in compliance with the proposed emission limitations. Based on reported information, EPA would decide which plastic parts and products surface coating facilities should be inspected and what records or processes should be inspected. The records would indicate to EPA whether owners and operators are correctly performing the required calculations to demonstrate compliance. If owners or operators use an add on control device, the records will also indicate whether the add on control device is being properly operated and maintained.

To minimize burdens, much of the information EPA would need to determine compliance would be recorded and retained on site at the facility. Such information would be reviewed by enforcement personnel during an inspection and would not need to be routinely reported to EPA. In addition, in many cases EPA has selected parameters for monitoring that are readily available or are already monitored by the industry for other purposes.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 5 ( a) Nonduplication Facilities that are subject to the NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines ( 40 CFR part 60,

subpart TTT) will be subject to the requirements of both the subpart TTT NSPS and the proposed plastic parts and products surface coating NESHAP, but they will not be subject to conflicting requirements between the two standards. Subpart TTT applies to sources constructed after January 8, 1986 that coat plastic parts for use in the manufacture of business machines.

Subpart TTT establishes volatile organic compound ( VOC) emission limitations for specific types of coatings ( e. g., prime coats,

color coats, texture coats), whereas the proposed plastic parts and products surface coating NESHAP will regulate HAP emissions.

The burden requested for this NESHAP requires similar information as subpart TTT NSPS. Facilities complying with the NSPS are required to calculate the mass of VOC emitted per volume of coating solids applied for each type of coating used ( i. e.,

prime coats, color coats, texture coats) on a monthly basis. To do this, facilities must determine the composition of each coating either by testing or by using information provided by the supplier or manufacturer. Similar information is required by this proposed NESHAP. Thus, facilities that are complying with both standards will be able to streamline their testing and recordkeeping requirements. In addition, both the NSPS and the proposed plastic parts and products surface coating NESHAP require reporting on a semiannual basis. Facilities can submit a single report with the necessary information to demonstrate compliance with both standards.

In addition, some facilities that are subject to the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities NESHAP ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart GG) will be subject to the requirements of both the subpart GG NESHAP and the proposed plastic parts and products surface coating NESHAP. The aerospace NESHAP establishes HAP and 6 VOC emission limitations for aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities that produce or repair aerospace vehicles ( e. g.,

airplanes, helicopters, space vehicles) or vehicle parts. The aerospace NESHAP applies only to parts and assemblies that are critical to the aerospace vehicle's structural integrity or flight performance. Therefore, the possibility exists that some facilities who coat both aerospace vehicle parts and other plastic parts will be subject to the requirements of both the aerospace NESHAP and the plastic parts and products surface coating NESHAP.

The burden requested for this NESHAP requires similar information as subpart GG. Facilities complying with subpart GG are required to demonstrate that the mass of HAP per volume of coating is below the coating specific limits. To do this,

facilities will be able to use coating composition information required by this proposed NESHAP. Therefore, facilities that are complying with both standards will be able to streamline their gathering of coating data. Furthermore, both subpart GG and the proposed plastic parts and products surface coating NESHAP require semiannual reporting so that facilities can submit one report to demonstrate compliance with both standards.

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 may be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the standards.

( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to the Office of Management and Budget The EPA solicited public comments on the need for this information, the accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden in the proposed rule announced in the Federal Register. In the final 7 rule EPA will respond to any comments from the public on these information collection requirements.

( c) Consultations The EPA has minimized the impact of the proposed rule on small entities throughout the rule development process.

Representatives of small entities have participated in stakeholder meetings held during the last three years. Further,

EPA is applying the minimum level of control to affected sources allowed by the Clean Air Act. The EPA is proposing compliance options that give small entities flexibility in choosing the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative for their operation. For example, a facility could purchase and use low

HAP coatings ( i. e., pollution prevention) that meet the proposed standards instead of using add on capture and control systems.

This method of compliance can be demonstrated with minimum burden by using purchase and usage records. No testing of materials would be required, as the facility owner could show that the coatings meet the emission limits by providing formulation data supplied by the manufacturer, which is typically already available to facilities.

( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Failure to require periodic reporting of HAP emissions would prevent the Administrator from determining if a source is in compliance with the NESHAP. If the reports and data parameters were collected less frequently, EPA would not be able to identify potential compliance problems in a timely fashion. Semiannual reports are required so that EPA can ensure that timely corrective action is being taken.

Respondents who choose to use an emission capture and control system would submit a control system performance test report, including operating limits for enclosure volumetric 8 flowrate and enclosure opening pressure drop across the enclosure openings. The operating limits ensure that the system maintains a constant capture efficiency. Respondents would also be required to establish operating limits, monitor, and keep records of specific operating parameters for each control device to ensure the control device continues to be well operated to achieve HAP reduction, and report any deviations from these operating parameters. If this information were collected less frequently, the main consequence could be decreased performance of emission control measures due to lack of regular inspection,

which could result in increased HAP emissions.

( e) General Guidelines This information collection meets the Office of Management and Budget's ( OMB) general guidelines for information collections and therefore does not require justification for any deviation from OMB's general guidelines.

( f) Confidentiality All information submitted to EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information.

( g) Sensitive questions This information collection does not request any information concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 9 ( a) Respondents/ North American Industrial Classification System and Standard Industrial Classification Codes The proposed source category definition includes facilities that apply coatings to plastic parts and products. In general,

facilities that coat plastic parts and products are covered under the Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) and North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes listed in the following table.

REGULATED CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES Category SIC NAICS Examples of potentially regulated entities Industrial 2522 337214 Office furniture, except wood 3086 32614, 32615 Plastic foam products ( e. g. pool floats, wrestling mats, life jackets)

3089 326199 Plastic products not elsewhere classified ( e. g., name plates, coin holders, storage boxes, license plate housings, cosmetic caps, cup holders)

3579 333313 Office machines 3663 33422 Radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment ( e. g., cellular telephones)

3714 336399 Motor vehicle parts and accessories 3799 336999 Transportation equipment not elsewhere classified ( e. g., snowmobile hoods, running boards, tractor body panels, personal watercraft parts)

3841 339111, 339112 Medical equipment and supplies 3949 33992 Sporting and athletic goods 3993 33995 Signs and advertising specialties Category SIC NAICS Examples of potentially regulated entities 10 3999 339999 Manufacturing industries not elsewhere classified ( e. g., bezels, consoles, panels, lenses)

Federal, State, and Local Governments Government owned or operated facilities that perform plastic parts and products surface coating ( b) Information Requested ( i) Data items, including recordkeeping requirements:

Test report. Facilities using an add on control device will be required to establish the operating range for monitored parameters; prepare a start up, shutdown, and malfunction plan;

and submit a notification of performance tests and an initial add on control device performance test report.

Notification reports. The owner or operator of each facility would be required to submit an initial notification report that the source is subject to the standard. The owner or operator of each new facility would be required to submit notifications of intent to construct, construction start date,

anticipated start up date, and actual start up date. All new and existing facilities would be required to submit a notification of compliance status including their initial compliance demonstration.

Compliance reports. The owner or operator of each facility would be required to submit semiannual compliance reports.

Sources with deviations would be required to provide additional detail in the semi annual compliance report.

Work practice plan. Facilities using an add on control device would be required to develop a work practice plan. The plan would include site specific requirements such as storing coatings in closed containers, transferring materials in closed systems, minimizing spills, and using closed mixing vessels. 11 Records and Calculations. Facilities complying with the emission limitations using the compliant material option or the emission rate( with or without add on controls) option will develop a recordkeeping system ( typically a spreadsheet) and enter information into the system. The EPA expects that to determine HAP content, facilities will have manufacturer's formulation data for materials used and would obtain usage data from purchasing records. Facilities will track the materials used, review the manufacturer's formulation data, and enter information from the formulation data into the spreadsheet. In addition, the facilities using the emission rate ( with or without add on controls) option will set up, run, and check the spreadsheet calculations used to determine the source wide emission rate.

( ii) Respondent activities: To assemble, submit, and store the data items necessary to submit the reports, an entity would typically develop a spreadsheet system for keeping records. The EPA expects that entities will gather information that is already available.

5. The Information Collected   Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management ( a) Agency Activities A list of Agency activities is provided in tables 5 through 7 ( see attachment 3).

( b) Collection Methodology and Management This collection of information does not require the use of automated collection techniques because of the relatively small number of respondents affected.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility 12 The EPA does not expect the proposed rule to adversely affect small entities. In developing the proposed regulation,

EPA has provided the maximum degree of flexibility to minimize impacts on small businesses by providing different compliance options, including options that require a minimum amount of recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

The EPA has determined that 50 of the 131 firms, or 38 percent of the total, affected by the proposed rule may be small. While the number of small firms appears to be a large proportion of the total number of affected firms, the small firms only experience 11 percent of the total national compliance cost of $ 13 million. Of the 50 affected small firms, only three firms are estimated to have compliance costs that exceed one percent of their revenues. In addition, only one small firm is estimated to have compliance costs that exceed three percent of its revenues,

and the amount of the exceedance is only 0.02 percent. Finally,

while there is a difference between the median compliance cost to sales estimates for the affected small and large firms ( 0.09 percent compared to 0.01 percent for the large firms), no adverse economic impacts are expected for either small or large firms affected by the rule. Therefore, the affected small firms are not disproportionately affected by this rule as compared to the affected large firms.

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities throughout the rule development process. Representatives of small entities have participated in stakeholder meetings held during the 3 years. Further, the Agency is applying the minimum level of control to affected sources allowed by the CAA. We are proposing compliance options which give small entities flexibility in choosing the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative for their operation. For example, a 13 facility could purchase and use low HAP coatings ( i. e., pollution prevention) that meet the proposed standards instead of using add on capture and control systems. This method of compliance can be demonstrated with minimum burden by using purchase and usage records. No testing of materials would be required, as the facility owner could show that their coatings meet the emission limits by providing formulation data supplied by the manufacturer.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the plastic parts and products surface coating rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) a small business that has less than 500 or 1,000 employees, depending on the size definition for the affected Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Code; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,

county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. It should be noted that companies classified under 24 different SIC codes are affected by the proposed rule, and the small business definition applied to each industry by SIC code is listed in the Small Business Administration ( SBA) size standards ( 13 CFR 121). For more information on size standards for particular industries,

refer to the economic impact analysis memorandum in the docket ( Docket No. A 99 12).

Small entities that would be subject to the regulation would not be systematically impacted more than larger entities.

Although the recordkeeping requirements are the same for small businesses and large businesses, EPA considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small businesses.

( d) Collection Schedule 14 The EPA expects one new facility to be constructed for each of the first 3 years. The EPA assumes that because compliance is not required until year 3 for existing facilities, existing facilities will wait until year 3 to begin complying with the requirements.

Year 1 for new and existing facilities includes the one time activity of reading the regulation. It also includes submitting the initial notification for existing sources that the source is subject to the standard.

New major sources would submit the following one time only notifications: intent to construct, start of construction date,

anticipated start up date, and actual start up date. These notifications generally would be submitted within 60 days of the activity.

In year 1, new facilities will begin training their personnel regarding the use of low HAP and compliant coatings and tracking their usage. Existing facilities would train personnel in year 3. Also in year 1, new facilities would begin complying with the organic HAP emission limit requirements, developing spreadsheets, and entering data as described in section 4( b).

For the burden estimates, it is assumed that new facilities will comply by using the emission rate without add on controls option.

In year 2, the new source from year 1 will submit the notification of compliance status and one semiannual report and the new facility from year 2 would submit all initial notifications. There are no activities in year 2 for existing sources.

In year 3, the new source from year 1 will submit two semiannual reports. The new source from year 2 will submit the notification of compliance status and one semiannual report. The new source from year 3 will submit all initial notifications. In year 3, all existing facilities will plan their compliance method and develop a recordkeeping system including spreadsheets. 15 base labor rate x 1.67 = loaded wage rate Facilities with add on controls would develop a startup,

shutdown, malfunction plan and a work practice plan; submit notification of intent to conduct the performance test; and conduct the initial add on control device performance test.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The EPA expects this regulation to affect 202 existing and 3 new plastic parts and products surface coating facilities over the first 3 years. Tables 1 through 3 present an itemized breakdown of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the respondents affected by these standards.

( b) Estimating Respondent Costs The information collection activities for sources subject to these requirements are presented in tables 1 through 3. The total cost for each respondent activity includes labor costs,

capital/ start up costs, and operating and maintenance ( O& M)

costs.

( i) Estimating Labor Costs. Labor rates, on a per hour basis, are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) web site ( http:// stats. bls. gov/ ecthome. htm) as posted for March 2000.

The base labor rates are $ 27.38 for technical, $ 41.64 for management personnel, $ 17.31 for clerical personnel. The labor rates include fringe benefits, including paid leave, insurance,

etc. The labor rates are also adjusted by an overhead and profit rate of 167 percent. Therefore, the total loaded wage rates are calculated by the following equation: 16 Given the cost overhead adjustments, the final total loaded wage rates are $ 45.74 for technical, $ 69.54 for management personnel,

and $ 28.91 for clerical personnel.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Start up Costs. The EPA does not expect any capital/ start up costs for facilities to add controls.

There are 19 existing facilities with add on controls that will comply with the emission rate with add on controls option.

However, EPA does not anticipate any other facilities to add controls to comply with this subpart. The 19 existing facilities will, however, incur a capital cost of $ 7,000 to purchase enclosure monitoring equipment. This cost is based on a vendor estimate. The EPA assumes all other required monitoring devices will already exist at these facilities. Monitors for the required control device operating parameters are typically purchased with the control device and would already be in use at existing facilities.

For the purpose of this subpart, EPA assumes that each owner or operator owns a computer with spreadsheet software.

( iii) Total O& M and Purchase of Service Costs. The total annual operating and maintenance costs were calculated based on estimated photocopying and postage costs for the various reports.

An estimate of $ 7.50 per report was applied to the numbers of reports submitted each year.

( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

Because ICRs are an incidental part of standards development, no costs can be attributed to the development of ICRs. Because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents are required under section 112 of the CAA, no additional operational costs would be incurred by the Federal Government. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents would occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of EPA's overall compliance 17 and enforcement program and, therefore, cannot be attributable to ICRs.

A list of Agency activities that are attributable to this ICR is provided in tables 5 through 7 ( see attachment 3).

Labor rates for the Federal employees are based on the estimated hourly rates of $ 39.62 for technical personnel ( GS 12,

Step 5); $ 57.92 for management personnel ( GS 15, Step 5); and $ 29.63 for clerical personnel ( GS 7, Step 5). These values include a 1.67 multiplier to account for overhead and fringe benefit costs.

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

The total number of respondents is also referred to as the respondent universe. The respondent universe for this ICR is based on EPA's plastic parts and products surface coating database. The database was populated using responses from a section 114 survey issued in 1998. The industry burden is calculated for 202 existing facilities. Based on U. S. economic census data for representative SIC codes, EPA expects one new facility will be constructed each year. The EPA expects that each new facility will comply by using the emission rate without add on controls option, because this option is more flexible than the compliant material option and because add on controls are generally not applicable to all types of facilities in this source category.

Each existing facility will choose to comply by using one of three options: compliant material option, emission rate without add on controls option, and emission rate with add on controls option. Of the 202 existing facilities, EPA expects 20 percent ( 40 facilities) to use the less burdensome compliant material option because some of the existing facilities are small, use fewer materials, and will be able to use only low or non HAP 18 materials. The remaining 162 existing facilities will choose the emission rate( with or without add on controls) option and will develop a recordkeeping system ( typically a spreadsheet) to track material usages and calculate emissions. Of the 162 facilities using the emission rate ( with or without add on controls) option,

EPA expects 19 to use the emission rate with add on controls option because 19 of the existing facilities already have controls in place. The remaining 143 facilities will use the emission rate without add on controls options to comply. Agency personnel are expected to observe the performance tests at half the existing facilities with add on control devices ( 9 facilities out of 19). No costs are associated with repeat performance tests because facilities will not " fail" the test since they are simply setting a typical control device and capture efficiency to use in compliance calculations.

( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables.

( i) The Respondent Tally. A breakdown for each of the collection, reporting, and recordkeeping activities required by the regulation is presented in tables 1 through 3. The estimate of total annual hours requested from the respondents is based on the assumptions outlined in section 6( d) of this supporting statement. The EPA estimated the respondent burden by totaling the hours for the first 3 years after the implementation of the regulation for technical, managerial, and clerical staff at the facility. This total was then divided by 3 to arrive at the average annualized burden in the first 3 years following promulgation ( see table 4). A similar approach was taken for estimating average annual labor and non labor costs. For the first 3 years after the implementation of the regulation, EPA estimates that industry would expend an average of 42,533 hours annually at a labor cost of $ 1,927,249 per year to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The 19 average annual capital cost is expected to be $ 44,333. The average annual operation and maintenance cost is expected to be $ 655 ( see table 4).

( ii) The Agency Tally. The bottom line agency burden hours and costs, presented in tables 5 through 7, are calculated by totaling the hours per year for technical, managerial, and clerical staff, and by totaling the cost column. Table 8 ( attachment 3) summarizes the agency burden for each of the first 3 years and calculates the average annual burden by dividing the 3 year total by 3. The estimated average annual burden, over the first 3 years, for the Agency would be 1,432 hours at a cost of $ 57,956 per year.

( iii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line.

Calculating the average annual costs underestimates costs in a typical year for a NESHAP. Calculating each year individually provides a more accurate account of how facilities will be affected in the first 3 years following promulgation.

During years 1 and 2, there is little burden for existing facilities because existing facilities are not required to begin compliance until year 3. Therefore, the year 3 burden for industry and the government is much higher than years 1 and 2.

( f) Reasons for Change in Burden This is a new collection and there is no change in burden.

( g) Burden Statement 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 20 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. 21 Attachment 1 Source Data and Information Requirements Requirement 40 CFR part 63 RECORDKEEPING 5 year retention of records 63.4531( b)

Copy of each notification and report as submitted and associated documentation 63.4530( a)

Recordkeeping relevant to start up, shutdown, and malfunction periods and continuous monitoring system 63.6( e)( 3)( iii) through ( v)

Copy of information, such as manufacturer's formulation data, used in calculations 63.4530( b), ( e), ( f), ( g)

Copy of all emission rate calculations 63.4530( c)

Record of all coatings used during each compliance period 63.4530( d)

Record of waste materials shipped off site to TSDF 63.4530( h)

Records of continuous compliance with operating limits for add on control 63.4530( k)

Records of deviations 63.4530( j)

General recordkeeping 63.10( b)( 1)

REPORTING Initial notification for existing sources 63.4510( b)

Notification of intent to construct 63.4510( a)

Notification of start construction 63.4510( a)

Notification of anticipated start up date 63.4510( a) Requirement 40 CFR part 63 22 Notification of actual startup date 63.4510( a)

Notification of compliance status 63.4510( c)

Notification of performance test 63.4510( a)

Semi annual compliance report 63.4520( a)

Start up, shutdown, and malfunction plan 63.6( e)( 3) Attachment 2 TABLES 1, 2, 3, and 4 Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Year 1 Table 2: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Year 2 Table 3: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Year 3 Table 4: Summary of Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Years 1 through 3 and Average Attachment 3 TABLES 5, 6, 7, AND 8 Table 5: Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Standard of Performance for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Year 1 Table 6: Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Standard of Performance for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Year 2 Table 7: Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Standard of Performance for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Year 3 Table 8: Annual Federal Government Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Standard of Performance for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart PPPP  Years 1 through 3 and Average


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56580-56583]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19934]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1162; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01087-A;
Amendment 39-22180; AD 2022-19-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam S.P.A.
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam S.P.A. (Tecnam) Model P2006T
airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. This AD

requires performing a detailed visual inspection (DVI) of the aileron
control assembly, repairing the aileron control assembly if any crack
or damage (including missing paint, nicks, or scrapes) is found,
measuring the length of the screws installed on the ceiling cover
panel, and replacing the screws if found to be of excessive length. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 30, 2022.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by October 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1162; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the MCAI, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1162; Project Identifier MCAI-
2022-01087-A'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jim
Rutherford, Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, MO 64106. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
EASA AD 2022-0167, dated August 11, 2022 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Tecnam Model
P2006T airplanes. The MCAI states that screws attaching the ceiling
panel covering the aileron control assembly could be of excessive
length and cause the aileron control rod to become blocked, cracked, or
damaged. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
unintended jamming of the aileron control rod assembly, the inability
to use the aileron control surfaces, and loss of control of the
airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1162.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Tecnam Service Bulletin 574-CS-Edition 1, Revision
3, dated August 1, 2022. The service information specifies performing a
DVI of the aileron control assembly, measuring the length of the screws
installed on the ceiling cover panel, and replacing the screws if found
to be of excessive length. The service information also specifies
contacting Tecnam for repair instructions if any crack or damage is
found on the aileron control rod.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information described above. The FAA is issuing this AD after
determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to
exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information already described, except as discussed under ``Differences
Between this AD, the MCAI, and the Service Information.''

Differences Between This AD, the MCAI, and the Service Information

    The MCAI specifies that the DVI of the aileron control assembly and
measurement of screws installed on the ceiling cover panel be performed
within 10 flight hours after the effective date of EASA AD 2022-0132,
dated July 4, 2022, or the effective date of the MCAI, depending on the
airplane's serial number. This AD requires the inspection and
measurement be performed before further flight after the effective date
of this AD.
    The service bulletin specifies contacting Tecnam for approved
corrective action instructions, and this AD requires using a repair
method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Tecnam's Design Organization
Approval.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance.

Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules
effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because the pilot could lose control of the airplane due to the jamming
of the aileron control rod caused by screws of excessive length
installed on the ceiling cover panel. Since this condition happens
rapidly and without warning, the inspections and any necessary repair
or replacement must be accomplished before further flight. Accordingly,
notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and
contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and
comment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 71 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost              Parts cost             product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect aileron control assembly  1 work-hour x $85    Not Applicable...........             $85          $6,035
                                   per hour = $85.
Measure ceiling cover panel       .50 work-hour x $85  Not Applicable...........           42.50        3,017.50
 attach screws.                    per hour = $42.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary actions
that would be required based on the results of the inspection and
measurement. The agency has no way of determining the number of
airplanes that might need this repair or replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair aileron control assembly...............  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85             $50            $135
Replace aileron control assembly..............  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85             500             585
Replace incorrect length ceiling cover panel    .50 work-hour x $85 per hour =               100          142.50
 screws.                                         $42.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-19-11 Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam S.P.A.: Amendment 39-
22180; Docket No. FAA-2022-1162; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01087-
A.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 30,
2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam S.P.A. Model
P2006T airplanes, all serial numbers (S/N) up to 345 inclusive, and
S/N 348, 352, 353, 355, and 357, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2710, Aileron
Control System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify
and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The FAA is
issuing this AD to detect and correct screws of excessive length
installed on the ceiling panel covering the aileron control
assembly, which could cause the aileron control rod to become
jammed, cracked, or damaged. The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could result in unintended jamming of the aileron control assembly,
the inability to use the aileron control surfaces, and loss of
control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection/Measurement

    Before further flight after the effective date of this AD,
perform a detailed visual inspection of the aileron control
assembly, part number 26-9-1502-000, for cracks and damage
(including missing paint, nicks, or scrapes) and measure the length
of the screws installed on the ceiling cover panel.
    (1) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, any crack or damage (including missing paint, nicks, or scrapes)
is found on the aileron control rod assembly, before further flight,
repair using a method approved by the FAA; the European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Tecnam's Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (2) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, any screws installed on the ceiling cover panel do not match the
limits specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (ii) of this AD, before
further flight, replace that screw with the correct screw identified
in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (ii) of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) If blind rivet nuts are installed on the ceiling panel
covering the aileron control assembly, then the correct panel screw
would be 12mm in length with part number UNI7689-3-12.
    (ii) If blind rivet nuts are not installed on the ceiling panel
covering the aileron control assembly, then the correct panel screw
would be equal to or less than 10mm in length with part number
UNI6594-2.9-9.5.
    Note to paragraph (g): Tecnam Service Bulletin 574-CS-Edition 1,
Revision 3, dated August 1, 2022, contains information related to
this subject.

(h) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in Sec.  39.19. In accordance with Sec.  39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, mail
it to the address identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email
to: [email protected]. If mailing information, also submit
information by email. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.

(j) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to EASA AD 2022-0167, dated August 11, 2022, for
related information. This EASA AD may be found in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1162.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Jim Rutherford,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at Costruzioni Aeronautiche
Tecnam S.P.A., Airworthiness Office Via S. D'acquisto 62, 80042
Boscotrecase, Italy; phone: +39 0823 997538; email:
tecnam.com">[email protected]tecnam.com; website: tecnam.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(817) 222-5110.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on September 8, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-19934 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 172 (Friday, September 4, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53484]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22036]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0808; FRL-9932-49-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
finalize a change to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect a
2014 EPA approval to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to
regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Texas' Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting program and to show that the SIP
deficiency identified in a prior partial disapproval for the 1997 Ozone
and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) has been addressed.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before October 5,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, the EPA is finalizing a change to the CFR without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as noncontroversial submittal
and anticipates no adverse comments. The change is to reflect a 2014
EPA approval to a SIP revision to regulate GHGs in the Texas PSD
permitting program and to show that the SIP deficiency identified in a
prior partial disapproval has been addressed. A detailed rationale for
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant
adverse comments are received in response to this action no further
activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives relevant adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 26, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-22036 Filed 9-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                 NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY                              2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD                            ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									          	OFFICE OF 										AIR AND RADIATION

July 18, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Meeting with GM on May 9, 2011

FROM:	Don Kopinski

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on May 9, 2011 between GM and EPA staff.  The following people attended:

      GM:  Barbara Kiss

      EPA: Angela Cullen, Chuck Moulis, Byron Bunker, Cle Jackson, Don Kopinski

The discussion focused on gasoline engine feasibility for the HD GHG rule.