Given the highly capital intensive nature of the control measures included in these analyses, it is not unreasonable that a lower interest rate would lead to more application of these measures to reduce SO2 and NOx and vice versa. More sources would be controlled that may not be able to control if they face relatively high interest rates for capital outlays in pollution control equipment. At Option 1, the annualized costs and emission reductions are higher with a 3 percent interest rate than a 7 percent interest rate since the lower interest rate leads to more sources having available controls under that option. At Option 2, the annualized costs and reductions are relatively close since the controls available to sources are about the same. At Option 3, the available controls are about identical regardless of the interest rate, but the costs are lower for the 3 percent interest rate due to the lower capital costs overall. Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 85 Table 8 68 SO2 Emissions and Emission Reductions and Total Annual Compliance Costs for Non Electricity Generating Sources Used to Establish State NOx Emissions Budgets under the NOx SIP Call a for BART Source Categories in 2015 BART Source Category Baseline Ozone Season Emissions Ozone Season Emissions After ControlTot al( tons) Interest Rate Illustrative Regulatory Options  Reduction in Ozone Season Emissionss ( tons) Total Annual Compliance Costs ( million 1990$)

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Industrial Boilers 188420,782 7% 32,213 151,387 200,308 420,636782 3% 89,06565,78 3 99164,438 204,217 Petroleum Refineries 199,571483 7% 2,097 31,319 56,462 199,483 3% 17,033 41,911 122.958,525 Combustion TurbinesKraft Pulp Mills 5119,80981 8 7% 0 110,814 28,380 Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 86 119,818 3% 0 3,12896 414,6814.0610 Internal Combustion Engines92,42 39,801 82,623100.4P ortland Cement Manufacturin gPlants 42116,7018 35 7% 0 13,383 26,312716 16 116,389835 3% 0 18,326 30,690 Hydrofluoric, Sulfuric, and Nitric Acid Plants 96,741 7% 34,140 36,753 36,753 96,741 3% 34,140 36,753 36,753 Chemical Process Plants 47,700 7% 0 2,376 3,571 47,700 3% 0 2,376 3,571 Iron and Steel Mills 23., 541 7% 0 2,914 TOTAL2,914 23,541 329,5693% 0 2,914 2,914 Coke Oven Batteries 9,815 7% 0 4,088 6,107 9,815 3% 0 3,724 5,564 Sulfur Recovery Plants 59,766 7% 126,3042031 3,265697 13,697 13,697 Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 87 59,766 277.23% a Emissions estimates are for large sources only. Baseline NOx emissions estimates for industrial boilers do not include emissions for the 90 nonfossil fuel fired boilers. The emissions reduction estimates reflect the preferred alternative for other stationary sources ( 60% control of large industrial boilers and combustion turbines; and control applied up to $ 5,000 per ton for stationary internal combustion engines and all cement kilns). 13,693 13,693 Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 88 Primary Aluminum Ore Reduction Plants 47,552 7% 1,630 3,260 3,260 47,552 3% 1,630 3,260 3,260 Lime Kilns 9,373 7% 0 0 0 9,373 3% 0 0 0 Glass Fiber Processing Plants 2,170 7% 0 0 0 2,170 3% 0 0 0 Municipal Incinerators 284 7% 0 0 0 284 3% 0 0 0 Coal Cleaning Plants 1,530 7% 0 0 0 1,530 3% 0 0 0 Carbon Black Plants 41,853 7% 0 0 0 41,853 3% 0 0 0 Phosphate Rock Processing Plants 21 7% 0 0 0 21 3% 0 0 0 Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 89 Secondary Metal Production Facilities Control Technology 60% Control for Industrial Boilers and Combustion Turbines$ 5, 000/ ton Alternative for: TotalIC EnginesCem ent KilnsSCR80 1870267SN CR1989,98 8 037235OT + WI3927% 0 0 392OTHERb13711 80 9,988 213% 2760 TOTAL80730 5580 0 TOTALS: 1,170208,08 8 7% 83,778 236,992 378,169 1,208,088 3% 132,279 290,591 a These results represent the number of emissions units for which the specified control technology is applied in the control cost analysis. State and source control decisions in response to the SIP call may differ. 373,797 b Includes sources that are estimated NOT to apply addition controls.

7.1.8 Adminstrative Costs for Non Electricity Generating Units The burden to other stationary source operators potentially resulting from implementation of the Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 90 NOx SIP call rule are primarily associated with costs of installing and operating a continuous emissions monitoring system ( CEMS) to monitor NOx mass emissions and demonstrate compliance with limits established by a State. This burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by an operator to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal or State agency.

A large proportion of the other stationary sources are expected to install CEMS and/ or upgrade their data acquisition and handling systems ( DAHS) in order to participate in the NOx trading program. For trading sources ( industrial boilers and combustion turbines) subject to Title IV monitoring in the Ozone Transport Region ( OTR), only administrative costs of recordkeeping and reporting were estimated. These units will not potentially experience additional capital or operating and maintenance costs as a result of this rulemaking since they are already equipped with a CEMS meeting Part 75 Subpart H specifications. However, Title IV units that are not in the OTR will likely require minor upgrades to their DAHS. Therefore, the burden estimate associated with this rulemaking for these sources includes additional capital and operations and maintenance costs.

For units not subject to Title IV monitoring but in the OTR, costs are estimated for upgrading the DAHS and performing annual quality assurance testing. For trading units not subject to the Title IV monitoring and not in the OTR, additional costs may result from installing a NOx CEMS, or other approved monitoring system, and a DAHS. The Part 75 NOx monitoring requirements vary depending on the fuel burned and the hours of operation. For example, monitoring requirements are less stringent for gas/ oil fired sources than for coal fired sources, and are even less stringent for peaking units and low NOx mass emissions sources. Similarly, the non trading sources are assumed to experience additional costs from installing a NOx CEMS, or other approved monitoring system, as well as a DAHS. 26 Although not explicitly required in the NOx SIP call, it is assumed as a worst case scenario that if controlled, a State would require a CEMS, or equivalent, for the non trading sources.

Table 7 15 presents estimates of the per source annual administrative costs that other stationary source operators may experience, based on assumptions of how States will implement administrative requirements in response to this rulemaking. These estimates are prepared for both trading and non trading sources and included in the cost analysis results.

Table 7 15 Average Per Source Annual Administrative Costs for Other Stationary Sources in 2007 ( 1990 dollars) Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 91 Table 8 69 NOx Emissions and Emission Reductions for BART Source Category GroupAnnual Monitoring CostsAnnual Reporting & Permitting CostsTotal Annual Administrative CostsIndustrial Boilers and Combustion Turbines$ 27,201$ 5,141$ 32,342IC Engines$ 43,353$ 253$ 43,606Cement Manufacturing$ 63,540$ 253$ 63,793Glass Manufacturing$ 83,664$ 253$ 83,917 7.2 Potential Economic Impacts This section presents the results of a screening level economic impact analysis for industrial boilers and turbines and other stationary sources potentially affected by the rule. The analysis estimates the potential impact on facilities and firms affected by the rule by comparing compliance costs to estimated sales or expenditures. Facilities and firms for whom costs exceed three percent or sales or expenditures are identified as the most likely to experience significant impacts as a result of the rule. Those for whom costs exceed one percent of sales or expenditures are also highlighted as potentially experiencing significant impacts. Costs that represent less than one percent of sales or expenditures are not expected to impose significant impacts.

While the RFA as amended by SBREFA does not apply to this rulemaking, the Agency elected to evaluate the potential impacts of the rule on potentially affected small entities, based on assumptions Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 92 about how the States could implement the requirements associated with meeting their NOx budgets.

The analysis of impacts is conducted at three levels: establishment ( or facility), firm and industry:

Costs at the source level summarized in Section 7.2 are aggregated for each establishment, where an establishment owns more than one affected source. Establishment level costs are then compared with estimated sales or expenditures for the average sized establishment in the relevant industry ( 4 digit SIC) and employee size category ( small vs. large), as described in Chapter 5.

Establishment level impacts are summarized at the industry level, as defined by 4 digit SIC codes.

Finally, costs are further aggregated to the firm level to account for the fact that some firms own more than one establishment affected by the rule. Firm level costs are compared with firm sales, obtained for the most part from Dun & Bradstreet data, as described in Chapter 5. For governments, costs are compared with revenues, and for colleges and universities costs are compared with expenditures.

Individual potentially affected establishments and firms may have both industrial boilers and gas turbines ( sources in the trading program) and other stationary sources ( sources not in the trading program) affected by the rule. To assess economic impacts more thoroughly, it is therefore necessary to consider the trading and non trading alternatives in combination.

Section 7.2.1 provides an overview of the potentially affected firms, facilities and sources in the affected universe. Detailed economic impacts are presented in Section 7.2.2 for the preferred regulatory alternative combination  a 60% reduction from uncontrolled 2007 emissions for industrial boilers and combustion turbines and a $ 5,000/ ton cost effectiveness cap for other non utility sources ( denoted by " 60%/$ 5,000"). Section 7.2.3 compares these results with results for two additional regulatory alternative combinations. The potential alternative combinations are shown in Table 7 16, with the regulatory alternative combinations examined in the economic impact analysis indicated with an " X". The alternative combinations that are analyzed capture the range of stringency considered by EPA, from the most stringent combination ( 70%/$ 5,000) to the least stringent combination ( 40%/$ 1,500.)

Table 7 16 Potential Regulatory Alternative Combinations for Non Electricity Generating Unit Economic Impact Analysis Regulatory Alternatives for Industrial Boilers and Combustion Turbines40% Control50% Control60% Control70% ControlRegulatory Alternatives for IC Engines and Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 93 Cement Manufacturing$ 1,500/ tonX$ 2,000/ ton$ 3,000/ ton$ 4,000/ ton$ 5,000/ tonXX Throughout the discussion, economic impacts are presented separately by size of the potentially affected entity that owns the affected establishments. Section 7.3 discusses firm level impacts for potentially affected small entities in more detail. Chapter 8 discusses impacts on potentially affected government owned entities in more detail.

7.2.1 Overview of Potentially Affected Sources, Establishments and Firms Table 7 17 shows the number of firms potentially affected under the preferred alternative, by source category. 27Categories in 2015 Table 7 18 shows the same information by sector and by size of entity.

Table 7 17 Number of Firms and Other Entities Potentially Affected, byBART Source Category Source TypeBasel ine Emissions ( tons) Interest Rate Potentially Affected Firms/ Entities Illustrative Regulatory Options Option 1 Option 2 TotalSmallOptio n 3 Industrial Boilers 221217,06 3 7% 67,325 130,456 130,522 Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 94 217,063 283% 111,939 130,424 Gas Turbines221 Internal Combustion Engines130,505 Petroleum Refineries 1886,566 7% 4,035 47,556 51,316 86,566 3% 4,579 51,259 53,005 Kraft Pulp Mills 103,614 7% 35,249 61,418 265,776 103,614 3% 53,729 65,792 Cement Manufacturing65, 797 Portland Cement Plants 120,567 7% 19,276 54,601 71,921 120,567 3% 30,903 71,921 71,921 Hydrofluoric, Sulfuric, and Nitric Acid Plants 2017,059 7% 11,276 11,283 11,283 17,059 53%

Table 7 18 Number of Firms Potentially Affected, by Sector and Size 11,276 11,283 11,283 Chemical Process Plants 72,577 7% 23,970 34,636 34,801 72,577 3% 27,142 34,801 34,801 Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 95 Iron and Steel Mills Sector and Size of EntityPoten tially Affected Firms/ Entit ies20,963 7% 1,036 6,997 8,507 20,963 3% 1,036 8,500 8,673 Coke Oven Batteries Firms 10,389 7% 0 5,768 5,768 10,389 3% 0 5,768 5,768 Sulfur Recovery Plants 651 7% 135 141 141 651 3% 135 141 141 Primary Aluminum Ore Reduction Plants 1,676 7% 50 253 of which255 1, small entities676 36% large entities50 253 255 Lime Kilns 17612,849 7% 2,683 4,471 7,153 12,849 3% 4,471 7,153 7,153 Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 96 Glass Fiber Processing Plants 6,677 7% 568 2,116 entity size unknown a41Federal government1Other government7Utilit y ( SIC 4911, 4931) b14Colleges/ univer sities6TOTAL281 a Unknown size refers to entities whose employee size could not be determined.

b These are primarily cogenerators that supply less than 50% 2,198 6,677 3% 775 2,116 2,198 Municipal Incinerators 1,656 7% 0 744 744 1,656 3% 0 744 744 Coal Cleaning Plants 1,110 7% 0 511 511 1,110 3% 0 511 511 Carbon Black Plants 4,645 7% 7 120 120 4,645 3% 7 120 120 Phosphate Rock Processing Plants 719 7% 0 45 48 719 3% 0 48 48 Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 97 Secondary Metal Production Facilities 1,377 7% 25 34 35 1,377 3% 25 34 35 TOTALS: 681,765 7% 165,634 361,152 391,101 681,765 3% 246,067 390,871 393,349 Table 8 70 Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 98 Total Annualized Costs of generated power to the electric power grid.

7.2.2 Results for the Preferred Alternative Combination ( 60%/$ 5,000)

Firm/ Entity Level Impacts Screening level impact results at the firm level are summarized in Table 7 19. This table shows the number of potentially affected firms or entities at particular levels of firm level costs as a percentage of firm sales, revenues or expenditures.

Table 7 19 shows that, at the firm or entity level, only a small percentage of the potentially affected firms or entities for which sales estimates are available ( 14 of 232 or six percent) experience costs above one percent of sales, and of these only eight of the 232 ( three percent) experience costs above three percent of sales. Five out of 36 identified potentially affected small entities may experience costs of three percent of sales or greater.

EPA expects that States implementing the SIP call will take these potential impacts into account in designing their implementation scenarios. Industries with establishments having the potential for significant impacts are likely candidates to be excluded from control requirements.

Table 7 19 Number of Potentially Affected Firms by Firm Costs as a Percentage of Sales/ Expenditures: 60%/$ 5,000 < 0.5 % 0.5 1.0% 1  3%> 3% Sales NA aTotalFirms/ Non Profits184134646253Of which, small entities22545036large entities1598018176entity size unknown30003841Federal Government anananana11Other Government a311117Utility b10111114Colleges/ Universities600006TOTAL203156849281a Sales not available or ( for the federal government) not applicable. b Co generation units that supply less than 50% of generated power to the electric power grid.

Establishment Level Impacts The 281 potentially affected firms are comprised of 546 establishments. Establishment level impacts provide additional insights on individual facilities, which in some cases are seen as stand alone profit centers. Table 7 20 summarizes the results of the establishment level analysis, by sector and firm size.

Table 7 20 shows that impacts of the preferred regulatory alternative are somewhat variable. The large majority of establishments ( 347) incur costs that represent one percent or less of estimated Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 99 sales/ expenditures, and of those 286 incur costs less than 0.5 percent of sales/ expenditures. Of the 110 establishments potentially incurring costs that exceed three percent of estimated sales/ expenditures, only seven are owned by identified small entities. One non federal government and one utility establishment incur costs greater than three percent of revenues.

EPA expects that States implementing the SIP call will take these potential impacts into account in designing their implementation scenarios. Industries with establishments having the potential for significant impacts are likely candidates to be excluded from control requirements.

Table 7 20 Number of Establishments by Costs as a Percentage of Value of Shipments/ Expenditures and Sector and Firm Size: 60%/$ 5,000 < 0.5 % 0.5 1.0% 1  3%> 3% TotalFirms/ Non Profits2695771109506Of which, owned by small entities2145737owned by large entities226495598428entity size unknown22411441Federal Government anananana12Other Government a31117Utility b733114Colleges/ Universities70007TOTAL2866175111546a Revenues not available for one " other government" and 12 federal government establishments. b Co generation units that supply less than 50% of generated power to the electric power grid.

Industry Level Impacts Table 7 21 shows estimated impacts at the establishment level by industry ( 2 digit SIC code level). Table 7 21 shows that, for the most part, only a small number of establishments ( usually less than 0.1 percent of the total) are potentially significantly impacted in any single industry compared to the total number of establishments for each potentially affected industry within the SIP call region. The 546 affected establishments represent only 0.02 percent of all the establishments in the SIP call region ( roughly 3.6 million). In most cases, potential impactsControl for BART Source Categories in 2015 ( million 1999$)

BART Source Category Interest Rate Illustrative Regulatory Options Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Industrial Boilers 7% $ 74.6 527.6 845.4 Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 100 3% 135.0 401.8 643.3 Petroleum Refineries 7% 4.2 180.2 428.6 3% 15.3 214.8 394.8 Kraft Pulp Mills 7% 20.7 141.7 313.3 3% 45.6 106.3 168.5 Portland Cement Plants 7% 2.9 174.8 409.5 3% 20.8 269.0 346.1 Hydrofluoric, Sulfuric, and Nitric Acid Plants 7% 18.0 23.4 23.4 3% 16.4 21.4 21.4 Chemical Process Plants 7% 14.4 70.8 87.8 3% 21.1 54.4 77.1 Iron and Steel Mills 7% 0.6 23.5 33.2 3% 0.4 22.7 32.4 Coke Oven Batteries 7% 0.0 18.7 33.8 3% 0.0 14.9 25.0 Sulfur Recovery Plants 7% 11.7 12.1 12.1 3% 11.7 12.1 12.1 Primary Aluminum Ore Reduction Plants 7% 1.7 7.76 7.82 Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 101 3% 1.0 5.0 5.0 Lime Kilns 7% 2.0 5.0 31.8 3% 4.3 25.4 25.4 Glass Fiber Processing Plants 7% 0.5 5.3 7.8 3% 0.7 4.8 6.8 Municipal Incinerators 7% 0.0 1.1 1.1 3% 0.0 0.9 0.9 Coal Cleaning Plants 7% 0.0 1.0 1.0 3% 0.0 0.8 0.8 Carbon Black Plants 7% 0.01 0.2 0.2 3% 0.005 0.1 0.1 Phosphate Rock Processing Plants 7% 0.0 0.1 0.2 3% 0.0 0.2 0.2 Secondary Metal Production Facilities 7% 0.02 0.04 0.1 3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTALS: 7% $ 151.43 $ 1,193.24 $ 2,237.24 3% $ 272.34 $ 1,157.09 $ 1,770.21 8.6 Caveats and Limitations of the Analyses There are a number of caveats and limitations associated with these analyses. They are: Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 102

The technologies applied in these analyses do not reflect emerging control devices that could be available in future years to meet any BART requirements in SIPs or upgrades to current devices that may serve to increase control levels. For example, there is increasing use of SCR/ SNCR hybrid technologies that can serve to lower the expected capital cost and lead to NOx control at high levels ( 90%).

Fuel switching is not considered as a way for BART eligible units, especially industrial boilers, to meet potential BART requirements in SIPs. Fuel switching can consist of coalfired sources switching from high to low sulfur coals ( e. g., Powder River Basin coals). This technique has been used by many power plants to meet SO2 requirements imposed by the Acid Rain Program and by various regulations, but has been less used by industrial sources.

There is a considerable range of equipment lives for the control devices applied in these analyses. For example, the equipment life for SCR can range from 10 to 40 years. We chose a middle point from this range to use in these analyses. To the extent that we underestimate the actual equipment life from use of these devices, we overestimate the annual costs of these controls and vice versa.

Labor and energy rates and other parameters to the cost estimates are estimated based on nationwide rates instead of regional and local rates. Using nationwide parameter estimates introduces some uncertainty in these estimates at a source specific level.

The emission reductions and controls that will be imposed on petroleum refineries as a result of various New Source Review settlements are not included in our regulatory baseline. Thus, this analysis is likely to overestimate costs of BART compliance to many BART eligible units at petroleum refineries.

As noted above in Section 8.4, there are a large number of non EGU BART source categories for which no SO2 or NOx controls exist. There are no impacts for 8 of the 25 non EGU source categories because there are no control measures available to reduce SO2 and NOx from these categories within AirControlNET or any other documentation that has been found in the course of completing this analysis. There are seven source categories for which only NOx reductions take place in these analyses due to there being no control measures available within AirControlNET or no controls available at $ 10,000/ ton or below. Finally, there are a total 10 source categories for which both SO2 and NOx reductions take place in these analyses.

Control programs implemented as command and control regulation, as this analysis models controls to affected non EGU sources, will lead to less induced technological innovation when compared to a market incentives based approach ( e. g., a cap and trade program).

There are some unquantified costs that EPA wants to identify as limits to its analysis. These costs include the costs of State administration of the program, which we believe are Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 103 modest. There also may be unquantified costs of transitioning to BART, such as the costs associated with the NOx SIP call are unlikely to result in any significant impacts at the industry level for potentially affected industries because the number of affected establishments are a very small proportion of the total in those industries. In addition, because only a very few establishments may experience potentially significant costs in each industry, the rule is not likely to result in price increases to customers of the affected firms or other indirect economic impacts. Furthermore, EPA expects that States implementing the SIP call will take these potential impacts into account in designing their implementation scenarios. Industries with potentially significant impacts are likely candidates to be excluded from control requirements. EPA has therefore concluded that a more detailed market level impacts analysis is not needed for any of these industries.

Table 7 21 Number of Establishments By Establishment Level Costs as a Percentage of Value of Shipments/ Expenditures and Industry: 60%/$ 5,000 SICIndustry/ Sector< 0.5 % 0.5 1.0% 1 3 %> 3% TotalPercent of Establishments in SIP Call Region Potentially Affected at the 2 digit SIC Code Level10Metal mining100010.614Non metal, non fuel mining/ quarrying 002350.220Food and kindred products mfgr. 35103390.421Tobacco products mfgr200021.622Textile mill products501170.124Lumber & wood products, exc. furniture00011< 0.125Furniture & fixtures101240.126Paper and Allied Products681773952.027Printing & publishing10102< 0.128Chemicals & allied products581195831.029Petroleum refining and related industries18211221.630Rubber & plastics products710190.132Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete Products46237430.533Primary metals35522440.934Fabricated metal products, exc. machinery & trans. equip. 41005< 0.135Industrial & commerical machinery & computer equip. 31138< 0.136Electronic & other elec. equip., exc. computer equip. 40004< 0.137Transportation equipment11011130.238Measuring instr., photo, med & optical goods; clocks10001< 0.139Miscellaneous manufacturing industries11103< 0.149Electric, gas & sanitary services121422751231.251Wholesale trade  nondurable goods10012< 0.172 Personal services00101< 0.179Amusement and recreation services00101< 0.180Health services30014< 0.189Miscellaneous services10001< 0.1Colleges/ universities70007< 0.1Federal government anananana12naOther government a31116naTOTAL2866175111546< 0.1 b Includes natural gas transmission establishments ( SIC 4922) and electric utilities establishments ( SIC 4911). Utilities having non EGU sources affected by these alternatives have co generation units that supply less than 50% of generated power to the electric power grid. aRevenues not available for one " other government" and 12 federal government establishments Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 104 7.2.3 Comparison by Regulatory Alternative Tables 7 22 and 7 23 provide an overview of economic impacts for the three combinations of regulatory alternatives considered. Table 7 22 presents results at the firm level, and Table 7 23 shows impacts at the establishment level.

Table 7 22 Number of Firms by Firm Costs as a Percentage of Sales/ Expenditures and by Regulatory Alternative < 0.5 % 0.5 1.0% 1  3%> 3% Sales NA aTotal40%/$ 1,500208126649281Preferred Alternative: 60%/$ 5,000 20315684928170%/$ 5,00019814101049281a Sales not available or ( for federal government) not applicable.

Table 7 23 Number of Establishments by Establishment Level Costs as a Percentage of Value of Shipments/ Expenditures and by Regulatory Alternative < 0.5 % 0.5 1.0% 1  3%> 3% Sales NA aTotal40%/$ 1,500333316610313546Preferred Alternative: 60%/$ 5,00028661751111354670%/$ 5,000252668812713546a Sales not available or ( for federal government) not applicable.

The comparison among these regulatory alternatives shows a modest difference in potential economic impacts between the preferred alternative and either the least or most stringent combination of regulatory alternatives considered. Only two additional firms and 17 additional establishments may incur costs above one percent of sales/ expenditures for the preferred alternative compared to the least stringent regulatory alternative. Applying the most stringent regulatory alternative results in an increase of six firms and 29 establishments that may incur costs above one percent of sales/ expenditures when compared to the preferred alternative.

7.3 Small Entity Impacts This section discusses potential impacts on small entities that may be affected by requirements related to the NOx SIP call. Since States are ultimately charged with achieving reductions to meet their emissions budgets, they should seek to minimize impacts on small entities to the maximum extent practicable. In this analysis, EPA has simulated State choices, so these impacts may or may not be respresentative of actual impacts once States make their own choices. The information presented in this Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 105 section may assist States in selecting control measures that minimize small entity impacts.

Table 7 24 shows potential small entity impacts for the preferred alternative combination and the other two regulatory alternative combinations considered.

Table 7 24 Number of Potentially Affected Small Entities by Cost as a Percentage of Sales/ Expenditures by Regulatory Alternative Regulatory AlternativeTotal Small Entities Potentially Affected< 1% 1 3%> 3% 40%/$ 1,500362943Preferred Alternative: 60%/$ 5,00036274570%/% 5,000362457 This comparison shows that only a small absolute number of small entities is predicted to incur costs above one percent in any of the regulatory alternatives. In addition, the preferred alternative only results in 2 additional potentially affected small entities with compliance costs greater than one percent of firm/ entity sales or revenues, compared to the least stringent regulatory alternative. States should carefully select control measures to avoid adverse impacts on these and other small entities to the extent practicable.

The maximum number of potentially affected small entities that may be significantly impacted under the preferred alternative is 9, as shown in Table 7 24. Table 7 25 presents the industries ( classified by 4 digit SIC code) that have potentially affected small entities with compliance costs greater than one percent of firm/ entity sales or revenues for the preferred regulatory alternative, and the number of small entities in each industry potentially affected at this level of impact. This calculation excludes entities for which firm/ entitylevel sales or revenues are not available ( 41 entities) and which could not be classified as small or large based on employment. Some of these firms are likely to be small but the Agency can not estimate how many.

Table 7 25 Potentially Affected Small Entities that May Incur Compliance Costs of Greater Than 1 Percent of Sales/ Revenues for the 60%/$ 5,000 Regulatory Alternative SIC CodeDescription of Affected IndustryNumber of Potentially Affected Small Entities in Each Affected Industry2033Canned fruit, vegetables, preserves, jams, jellies12075Soybean oil mills12434Wood kitchen cabinets12869Industrial Organic Chemicals, n. e. c. 13241Cement, hydraulic5 7.4 References Abt Associates, 1998. Non Electricity Generating Unit Economic Impact Analysis for the NOx SIP Call Draft BART RIA Chapter  4/ 12/ 05  Deliberative 8 106 RIA. Prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 1998.

Pechan Avanti Group. Ozone Transport Rulemaking Non Electricity Generating Unit Cost Analysis. Prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 1998. possible retirement of smaller or less efficient non EGU units, and employment shifts as workers are retrained at the same company or re employed elsewhere in the economy.

Recent research suggests that the total social costs of a new regulation may be affected by interactions between the new regulation and pre existing distortions in the economy, such as taxes. In particular, if cost increases due to a regulation are reflected in a general increase in the price level, the real wage received by workers may be reduced, leading to a small fall in the total amount of labor supplied. This " tax interaction effect" may result in an increase in deadweight loss in the labor market and an increase in total social costs. Although there is a good case for the existence of the tax interaction effect, recent research also argues for caution in making prior assumptions about its magnitude. However, there are currently no government wide economic analytical guidelines which discuss the tax interaction effect and its potential relevance for estimation of federal program costs and benefits. The limited empirical data available to support quantification of any such effect leads to this qualitative identification of the costs.

8.7 References E. H. Pechan and Associates. AirControlNET Version 4.0 Control Measure Documentation Report. Prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 2005.

E. H. Pechan and Associates. BART Non EGU Control Strategy Analysis Technical Support Document. Prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2005.

U. S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A 4. " New Guidelines for the Conduct of Regulatory Analysis." September 17, 2003. Found on the Internet at http:// www. whitehouse. gov/ omb/ circulars/ a004/ a 4. html.

U. S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A 94. " Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit Cost Analysis of Federal Programs." October 29, 1992. Found on the Internet at http:// www. whitehouse. gov/ omb/ circulars/ a094/ a094. html.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 26110]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10057]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91791; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-93]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rules
7.35 and 7.35A

May 7, 2021.
    On November 3, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Rule 7.35 regarding dissemination of
Auction Imbalance Information if a security is an IPO or Direct Listing
and has not had its IPO Auction or Direct Listing Auction, and Rule
7.35A regarding DMM consultations in connection with an IPO or Direct
Listing. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 17, 2020.\3\ On December 18, 2020,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a
longer period within which to either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\
On February 12, 2021, the Commission instituted proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\ On April 12, 2021, the Exchange
filed Partial Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change with the
Commission and submitted Partial Amendment No. 1 for inclusion in the
public comment file.\8\ The Commission has received no other comment
letter on the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment
No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90387 (Nov. 10,
2020), 85 FR 73322 (Nov. 17, 2020) (``Notice''). Comments received
on the proposed rule change are available on the Commission's
website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2020-93/srnyse202093.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90723 (Dec. 18,
2020), 85 FR 84446 (Dec. 28, 2020).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91121, (Feb. 12,
2021), 86 FR 10386 (Feb. 19, 2021).
    \8\ In Partial Amendment No. 1, the Exchange provides additional
background in support of, but does not propose any further
modification to the Exchange rules in the initial proposal. See
Letter from Martha Redding, Associate General Counsel, NYSE LLC, to
Secretary, Commission (April 12, 2021). Partial Amendment No. 1 is
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2020-93/srnyse202093-8662680-235308.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \9\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change.
The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule
change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on
November 17, 2020.\10\ May 16, 2021, is 180 days from that date, and
July 15, 2021, is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\11\ designates
July 15, 2021, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve
or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2020-93) as
modified by Partial Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-10057 Filed 5-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 of 5 DRAFT 4/ 19/ 06 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD ( HSRB) MAY 2 3, 2006 PUBLIC MEETING Tuesday, May 2, 2006 Holiday Inn Hotel and Suites Alexandria Historic District 62 First Street Alexandria, VA 22314 703 548 6300 HSRB WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ osa/ hsrb/ Docket Telephone: ( 202) 566 1752 Docket Number: EPA HQ ORD 2006 0310 C 8: 30 AM Introduction and Identification of Board Members   Celia Fisher, Ph. D. ( HSRB Chair)

C 8: 45 AM Welcome   To be announced C 9: 00 AM Opening Remarks   To be announced C 9: 15 AM Meeting Administrative Procedures  Paul Lewis, Ph. D. ( Designated Federal Officer, HSRB, EPA)

C 9: 20 AM Meeting Process   Celia Fisher, Ph. D. ( HSRB Chair)

C 9: 30 PM Science and Ethics of Chromium Human Studies  Timothy McMahon, Ph. D. ( Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA), Jonathan Chen, Ph. D. ( OPP, EPA) and Mr. John Carley ( OPP, EPA)

C 10: 30 AM Break C 10: 45 AM Public Comments C 11: 45 AM Lunch C 12: 45 PM Board Discussion Hexavalent chromium is a component of a pesticide product intended to be used as a wood preservative. Members of the general public may experience dermal exposure to residues of hexavalent chromium remaining on wood treated with a wood preservative. Because chromium has caused allergic contact dermatitis ( ACD) in occupational settings, EPA has determined that it should assess the potential for ACD in the general public resulting from the use of wood preservatives containing chromium.

In a meeting of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ( SAP) in May 2004, EPA obtained independent peer review of scientific issues related to the assessment of the potential dermal risk resulting from exposure to chromium. See www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ 2004/ final. doc The Agency has carefully considered the report of the SAP, as well as the advice of EPA scientists 2 of 5 through the steering committee of the Agency's Science Policy Council. Taking all of this into account, EPA has derived a " sensitization reference dose" ( RfD) based on the 10% Minimum Elicitation Threshold ( MET 10) and use of a 10 fold uncertainty factor for potential variability within the human population and other uncertainties. See ADTC Memorandum, " Hexavalent Chromium  Finalization of Issues related to Quantitation of Dermal Risk from exposure to treated wood containing hexavalent chromium," August 31, 2004.

1. Scientific considerations EPA has identified a study performed with subjects who had documented sensitivity to chromium ( Nethercott, et al., 1994). The study was conducted to identify a level of exposure to chromium below which dermal exposure did not appear to elicit an ACD response. Regarding the Nethercott human study, the Agency has concluded that the study contains information sufficient for assessing human risk resulting from potential dermal exposure.

Please comment on whether the Nethercott study is sufficiently sound, from a scientific perspective, to be used to estimate a safe level of dermal exposure to hexavalent chromium.

2. Ethical considerations The Agency requests that the Board provide comment on the following:

a. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the Nethercott study was fundamentally unethical?

b. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the study was significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing at the time the research was conducted?

C 2: 30 PM Science and Ethics of Carbofuran Human Studies   John Liccione, Ph. D. ( OPP, EPA) and Mr. John Carley ( OPP, EPA)

C 3: 30 PM Break C 3: 45 PM Public Comments C 4: 30 PM Board Discussion Carbofuran is an N methyl carbamate ( NMC) pesticide whose primary toxic effect is neurotoxicity caused by the inhibition of the enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, via carbamylation followed by rapid recovery. Carbofuran can, at sufficiently high doses, lead to a variety of clinical signs. The Agency is conducting acute, aggregate ( single chemical, multi route) and worker risk assessments of carbofuran. In addition, carbofuran is a member of the N methyl carbamate common mechanism group and is thus included in the cumulative ( multi chemical, multi route) risk assessment for the NMCs.

1. Scientific considerations The Agency's WOE document and DERs for carbofuran describe the study design and results of a carbofuran human oral study and two human dermal toxicity studies. The WOE 3 of 5 document also discusses the Agency's conclusions that these studies are useful in establishing points of departure, both oral and dermal, for the single chemical assessment and in informing the interspecies uncertainty factor for the cumulative assessment.

Please comment on the scientific evidence that supports these conclusions.

C 5: 30 PM Adjournment 4 of 5 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD ( HSRB) PUBLIC MEETING Wednesday, May 3, 2006 Holiday Inn Hotel and Suites Alexandria Historic District 62 First Street Alexandria, VA 22314 703 548 6300 HSRB WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ osa/ hsrb/ Docket Telephone: ( 202) 566 1752 Docket Number: EPA HQ ORD 2006 0310 C 8: 30 AM Convene Meeting   Celia Fisher, Ph. D. ( HSRB Chair)

C 8: 40 AM Follow up From Previous Day's Discussion   Mr. William Jordan ( OPP, EPA)

C 8: 50 AM Board Discussion ( continued)

Carbofuran ( continued)

2. Ethical considerations The Agency requests that the Board provide comment on the following:

a. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of any of the human studies conducted with carbofuran was fundamentally unethical?

b. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the studies was significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing at the time the research was conducted?

C 9: 30 AM Science and Ethics of Methyl Isothiocyanate ( MITC)   Anna Lowit, Ph. D. ( OPP, EPA), Andrew L. Rubin, Ph. D., D. A. B. T. ( Calif. Department of Pesticide Regulation, Calif. EPA), and Mr. John Carley ( OPP, EPA)

C 10: 30 AM Break C 10: 45 AM Public Comments C 11: 30 AM Lunch C 12: 30 PM Board Discussion MITC is an irritating compound that has a limited animal database for toxicity via inhalation, the key route of exposure. MITC can be used as a pesticide directly to treat wood poles, but the major pathway of exposure to MITC is from degradation of several fumigant pesticides ( i. e., metam sodium, metam potassium, and dazomet). Due to its volatility, MITC has the potential to move off site, which can result in exposure to bystanders near treated areas and, 5 of 5 through ambient air, to people far away from treated areas. Use of the soil fumigants also results in exposure to those handling the pesticides or working in treated fields.

1. Scientific considerations The Agency's WOE document and DER for MITC describe the study design and results of the MITC odor threshold and eye irritation human studies. The WOE document also discusses the Agency's conclusions that the eye irritation study is useful for the assessment of potential effects on bystanders and workers from exposures to MITC during acute ( 1 day) intervals. The Agency has concluded that the odor threshold study is less useful than the eye irritation study for assessing the human health effects of MITC, since the odor detection threshold for humans is higher than the level that causes eye irritation. The Agency has decided, however, to use the results of the eye irritation study for assessing the inhalation exposure of MITC.

Please comment on the scientific evidence that supports this conclusion.

2. Ethical considerations The Agency requests that the Board provide comment on the following:

a. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the human eye irritation study with MITC was fundamentally unethical?

b. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of this study was significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing at the time the research was conducted?

C 2: 30 PM Board Writing Session C 3: 30 PM Adjournment Please be advised that agenda times are approximate. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Officer for this meeting, Paul Lewis via telephone: ( 202) 564 8381 or email: lewis. paul@ epa. gov


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 6, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36999-37003]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11654]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0429]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Henderson Bay, Henderson Bay, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a special local
regulation for certain waters of Henderson Bay. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters
near Henderson Bay, Henderson Bay, NY, during the swimming portion of a
triathlon on July 8, 2023. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit
persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo or a designated
representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2023-0429 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email MST2 Andrew Nevenner, Waterways
Management Division, MSD Massena, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 315-769-
5483, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On March 27, 2023, the Henderson Business and Community Council
notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Henderson
Harbor Triathlon Starting at 8 a.m. on July 8, 2023. The swim portion
of the triathlon will start and end at the Henderson Boat Launch and
will be approximately 750-meters in length. This proposed rulemaking
would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the special local
regulation zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or
a designated representative.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of life of
the participants within the regulated area before, during, and after
the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a special local regulation from
8 a.m. through 11 a.m. on July 8, 2023. The special local regulation
would cover all navigable waters within a 750-meter marked swim course
near the Henderson Boat Launch. The duration of the zone is intended to
ensure the safety of swimmers before, during, and after the scheduled 8
through 11 a.m. swimming event. No vessel or person would be permitted
to enter the special local regulation area without obtaining permission
from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we
are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation.
Vessel traffic would be minimal due to the closure of the Henderson
Boat Launch. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice
to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule
would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of
this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special
local regulation lasting 3 hours that would prohibit

entry within the regulated area. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2023-0429 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. Also, if you click on the Dockets tab and then the
proposed rule, you should see a ``Subscribe'' option for email alerts.
The option will notify you when comments are posted, or a final rule is
published.
    We review all comments received, but we will only post comments
that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post
off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. In Sec.  100.901, amend Table 1 by adding ``Henderson Harbor Sprint
Triathlon'' to read as follows:

Sec.  100.901  Great Lakes annual marine events.

* * * * *

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                              * * * * * * *
                           Sector Buffalo, NY:

                           Fireworks by Grucci

Sponsor: New York Power Authority.
Date: Last weekend of July.
Location: Lake Ontario, Wright's Landing/Oswego Harbor, NY within an 800
 foot radius of the fireworks launching platform located in approximate
 position 43[deg]28'10'' N 076[deg]31'04'' W..

               Flagship International Kilo Speed Challenge

Sponsor: Presque Isle Powerboat
 Racing Association.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of June.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie, Presque Isle Bay, south of a line
 drawn from 42[deg]08'54'' N 080[deg]05'42'' W; to 42[deg]07' N
 080[deg]21' W will be a regulated area. That portion of Lake Erie,
 Presque Isle Bay, north of a line drawn from 42[deg]08'54'' N
 080[deg]05'42'' W; to 42[deg]07' N 080[deg]21' W will be a ``caution
 area''. All vessels transiting the caution area will be operated at
 bare steerageway, keeping the vessel's wake at a minimum, and will
 exercise a high degree of caution in the area. The bay entrance will
 not be effected..

                Flagship International Offshore Challenge

Sponsor: Presque Isle Powerboat
 Racing Association.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of June.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie, Presque Isle Bay, Entrance Channel,
 and the enclosed area from Erie Harbor Pier Head Light (LLNR 3430)
 northeast to 42[deg]12'48'' N 079[deg]57'24'' W, thence south to shore
 just east of Shades Beach..

                       Friendship Festival Airshow

Sponsor: Friendship Festival.
Date: 4th of July holiday.
Location: That portion of the Niagara River and Buffalo. Harbor from:...

             Latitude                             Longitude

42[deg]54.4' N....................  078[deg]54.1' W, thence to
42[deg]54.4' N....................  078[deg]54.4' W, thence along the
                                     International Border to
42[deg]52.9' N....................  078[deg]54.9' W, thence to
42[deg]52.5' N....................  078[deg]54.3' W, thence to
42[deg]52.7' N....................  078[deg]53.9' W, thence to

42[deg]52.8' N....................  078[deg]53.8' W, thence to
42[deg]53.1' N....................  078[deg]53.6' W, thence to
42[deg]53.2' N....................  078[deg]53.6' W, thence to
42[deg]53.3' N....................  078[deg]53.7' W, thence along the
                                     breakwall to
42[deg]54.4' N....................  078[deg]54.1' W.

                     NFBRA Red Dog Kilo Time Trials

Sponsor: Niagara Frontier Boat
 Racing Association.
Date: 4th or 5th weekend of
 September.
Location: That portion of the Niagara River, Tonawanda Channel, between
 Tonawanda Channel Buoy 31 to approximately \1/2\ mile southwest of
 Twomile Creek along a line drawn from 43[deg]00'45'' N 078[deg]55'06''
 W to 43[deg]00'28'' N 078[deg]54'56'' W (Sipco Oil Company)..

                     Sodus Bay 4th of July Fireworks

Sponsor: Sodus Bay Historical
 Society.
Date: 4th of July holiday.
Location: Lake Ontario, within a 500 foot radius around a barge anchored
 in approximate position 43[deg]15.73' N 076[deg]58.23' W, in Sodus Bay..

                              Tallship Erie

Sponsor: Erie Maritime Programs,
 Inc.
Date: 1st or 2nd weekend of July.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie, Presque Isle Bay Entrance Channel
 and Presque Isle Bay from:.

             Latitude                             Longitude

42[deg]10' N......................  080[deg]03' W, thence to
42[deg]08.1' N....................  080[deg]07' W, thence to
42[deg]07.9' N....................  080[deg]06.8' W, thence east along
                                     the shoreline and structures to:
42[deg]09.2' N....................  080[deg]02.6' W, thence to
42[deg]10' N......................  080[deg]03' W.

                Thomas Graves Memorial Fireworks Display

Sponsor: Port Bay Improvement
 Association.
Date: 1st or 2nd weekend of July.
Location: That portion of Lake Ontario, Port Bay Harbor, NY within a 500
 ft radius surrounding a barge anchored in approximate position
 43[deg]17'46'' N 076[deg]50'02'' W..

                    Thunder Island Offshore Challenge

Sponsor: Thunder on the Water Inc.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of June.
Location: That portion of Lake Ontario, Oswego Harbor from the West Pier
 Head Light (LLNR 2080) north to:.

             Latitude                             Longitude

43[deg]29'02'' N..................  076[deg]32'04'' W, thence to
43[deg]26'18'' N..................  076[deg]39'30'' W, thence to
43[deg]24'55'' N..................  076[deg]37'45'' W, thence along the
                                     shoreline to the West Pier Head
                                     Light (LLNR 2080).

                       We Love Erie Days Fireworks

Sponsor: We Love Erie Days
 Festival, Inc.
Date: 3rd weekend of August.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie, Erie Harbor, within a 300 foot
 radius, surrounding the Erie Sand and Gravel Pier, located in position
 42[deg]08'16'' N 080[deg]05'40'' W..

                            Christmas in July

Sponsor: Henderson Business and
 Community Council.
Date: Final weekend of July.
Location: The regulated area would cover all navigable waters within
 Henderson Bay starting at point 43[deg]51'44'' N 76[deg]12'07.3'' W and
 running north adjacent to the shore to point 43[deg]52'12.2'' N
 76[deg]11'32.7'' W, continuing northwest to point 43[deg]53'40.9'' N
 76[deg]12'40.6'' W and running south adjacent to the shore to point
 43[deg]51'47.2'' N 76[deg]14'08.3'' W, ending at the starting position
 at point 43[deg]51'44.0'' N 76[deg]12'07.3'' W..

             Latitude                             Longitude

43[deg]51'44'' N..................  076[deg]12'07.3'' W, thence to
43[deg]52'12.2'' N................  076[deg]11'32.7'' W, thence to
43[deg]53'40.9'' N................  076[deg]14'08.3'' W, thence (along
                                     the shoreline to end at the
                                     starting position).

                    Henderson Harbor Sprint Triathlon

Sponsor: Henderson Business and
 Community Council.
Date: On or around the 2nd weekend
 of July.
Enforcement Period: 0800-1100.
Location: The regulated area would cover navigable waters within
 Henderson Bay starting at point 43[deg]51'02.5'' N 076[deg]12'21.9'' W
 and running northeast adjacent to the shore to point 43[deg]51'05.9'' N
 076[deg]12'12.2'' W, continuing west to point 43[deg]51'06.2'' N
 076[deg]12'21.2'' W, ending at starting position at point
 43[deg]51'02.5'' N 076[deg]12'21.9'' W..

             Latitude                             Longitude

43[deg]51'02.5'' N................  076[deg]12'21.9'' W, thence to
43[deg]51'05.9'' N................  076[deg]12'12.2'' W, thence to
43[deg]51'06.2'' N................  076[deg]12'21.2'' W, thence (along
                                     the shoreline to end at the
                                     starting position).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All coordinates listed in Table 100.901 reference Datum NAD 1983.

\2\ As noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the enforcement dates
  and times for each of the listed events in this table are subject to
  change. In the event of a change, or for enforcement periods listed
  that do not allow a specific date or dates to be determined, the
  Captain of the Port will provide notice to the public by publishing a
  Notice of Enforcement in the Federal Register, as well as, issuing a
  Broadcast Notice to Mariner.

    Dated: May 25, 2023.
Mark I. Kuperman,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2023-11654 Filed 6-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Appendix II.C.6.

Translation of Residue Source Data to CSFII Food Forms

This appendix is available on EPA’s website at

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/common_mech_groups.htm#op"  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/common_mech_groups.htm#op

A CD containing the data in this appendix may also be obtained by

contacting the Office of Pesticide Programs Public Docket

Docket #  EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0618

One Potomac Yard

12777 S. Crystal Drive Room S-4400

Arlington, Virginia, 22202

703-305-5805

Monday through Friday, 8:30 am – 4:00 pm


Table 2a. Annual AMF Production Industry Burden and Cost: National Emission Standards for H File= SF 83. wq1 ( A) ( B) ( C) ( D) ( E)

Hours per Number of Hours Respondents Technical Notes Occurrence Occurrences Per Respondent Per Year Hours CBP? Per Respondent Per Year Per Year ( CBP's are excluded) Per Year ( C= AxB) ( E= CxD)

Burden Item a, b @$ 57.12 1. Applications c NA 2. Surveys and St c NA 3. Reporting Requ d a. Read instru d 4 0 0 3 0.0 b. Required ac d cluded in Section 4c c. Create infor d cluded in Section 4c d. Gather existing informationcluded in Section 4c e. Write reports i. Initial re d 52 0 0 3 0.0 ii. Startup/ e 2 1 2 3 6.0 iii. Periodi f 8 2 16 3 48.0 iv. LDAR g 0 0 0 0 0.0 4. Recordkeeping Requirements a. Read Instruc d 4 0 0 3 0.0 b. Plan Activiti d 40 0 0 3 0.0 c. Implement Activities i. Material d d NA ii. Control equipment inspection  Tanks 2 12 24 3 72.0  Closed vent system 2 2 4 3 12.0 iii. Control equipment leak monitoring  Cover vented to control d 1 2 2 3 6.0  Closed vent system 1 2 2 3 6.0 iv. Control devices  Initial d 80 0 0 3 0.0  Operate and maintain CM 8 12 96 3 288.0 v. LDAR program  Initial r d 20 0 0 0 0.0  Perform monitoring/ repai 16 12 192 3 576.0 vi. Containe c NA ? d. Develop Rec d i. Develop startup/ shutdown/ m 20 0 0 3 0.0 ii. Control equipment 16 0 0 3 0.0 iii. LDAR p g 40 0 0 3 0.0 ? e. Record Information ( all information required by standard)

i Initial req d 17 0 0 3 0.0 ii. Control equipment inspecti 1 2 2 3 6.0 iii. Control h 1 52 52 3 156.0 iv. Control device CMS 1 12 12 3 36.0 vii. LDAR program 2 12 24 3 72.0 ? f. Time to Train d i. Material d d NA ii. Control e i 8 1 8 3 24.0 iii. LDAR p i 2 1 2 3 6.0 iv. Container c NA Subtotal Labor hours 1,314.0 TOTAL LABOR HOURS AND COST Assumptions a) Burden calculation based on the assumption that affected facility owners and operators have already complied with the initial r b) This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 85.81 per hour for Managerial labor; $ 57.12 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 36.2 " Table 10: Private Industry, by occupational and industry group".

c) Not applicable because it is not required by the rule.

d) We assume that there will be no new sources over the next three years of this ICR. We also assume that all existing sources h e) Major sources must submit startup, shutdown, malfunction reports semiannually when actions are taken in the event of a startu Sources can submit the information on startup, shutdown and malfunction as part of the periodic reports.

f) The rules requires that all sources submit periodic reports ( semiannual or according to the schedule for Title V).

g) Equipment leak standards requires the submittal of an initial report and semiannual reports of leak detection and repair ( LDAR initiation of a quality improvement program. We have assumed that sources are submitting the required LDAR information w h) We have assumed that control equipment monitoring will occur 7 days per week or 52 weeks per year.

i) We have assumed that there will be some labor hours associated with rule analysis and training per year. r Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( F) ( G) ( H)

Management Clerical Total Hours Hours Labor Cost Per Year Per Year Per Year ( Ex0.05) ( Ex0.1)

@$ 85.81 @$ 36.27 0.0 0.0 $ 0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.3 0.6 $ 390.23 2.4 4.8 $ 3,121.80 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 3.6 7.2 $ 4,682.70 0.6 1.2 $ 780.45 0.3 0.6 $ 390.23 0.3 0.6 $ 390.23 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 14.4 28.8 $ 18,730.80 0.0 0.0 28.8 57.6 $ 37,461.60 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.3 0.6 $ 390.23 7.8 15.6 $ 10,145.85 1.8 3.6 $ 2,341.35 3.6 7.2 $ 4,682.70 1.2 2.4 $ 1,560.90 0.3 0.6 $ 390.20 65.7 131.4 $ 85,459.30 1,511.1 $ 85,459.30 ial requirements including the instalation of any required equipment.

6.27 per hour for Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2001.

es have already complied with this one time activity.

tartup, shutdown, or malfunction that are consistent with the source's startup, shutdown, malfunction plan. The plan should also include corrective acti AR) program experiences and any changes to the processes, monitoring frequency and n with the periodic reports. actions taken. We have Table 2d. Annual PC Production Industry Burden and Cost: National Emission Standards for Ha File= SF 83. wq1 ( A) ( B) ( C) ( D) ( E)

Hours per Number of Hours Respondents Technical Notes Occurrence Occurrences Per Respondent Per Year Hours CBP? Per Respondent Per Year Per Year ( CBP's are excluded) Per Year ( C= AxB) ( E= CxD)

Burden Item a, b @$ 57.12 1. Applications c NA 2. Surveys and St c NA 3. Reporting Requ a, d a. Read instru d 4 0 0 0 0.0 b. Required ac d cluded in Section 4c c. Create infor d cluded in Section 4c d. Gather existing informationcluded in Section 4c e. Write repor a i. Initial re d 52 0 0 4 0.0 ii. Startup/ e 2 1 2 4 8.0 iii. Periodi f 8 2 16 4 64.0 iv. LDAR g 8 2 16 4 64.0 4. Recordkeeping a a. Read Instruc d 4 0 0 2 0.0 b. Plan Activiti d 40 0 0 2 0.0 c. Implement A a i. Material d d NA ii. Control equipment inspection  Tanks d NA  Closed vent system 2 2 4 2 8.0 iii. Control equipment leak monitoring  Cover vented to control d 1 2 2 2 4.0  Closed vent system 1 2 2 2 4.0 iv. Control devices  Initial d 80 0 0 0 0.0  Operate and maintain CM 8 12 96 2 192.0 v. LDAR program  Initial r d 20 0 0 0 0.0  Perform monitoring/ repair 1) In h 0.1 1,092 192 2 384.0 2) Ui 2 vi. Containe c NA ? d. Develop Rec d i. Develop startup/ shutdown/ m 20 0 0 0 0.0 ii. Control equipment 16 0 0 0 0.0 iii. LDAR p g 40 0 0 2 0.0 ? e. Record Information ( all information required by standard)

i Initial req d 17 0 0 0 0.0 ii. Control equipment inspecti 1 2 2 2 4.0 iii. Control h 1 52 52 2 104.0 iv. Control device CMS 1 12 12 2 24.0 vii. LDAR g, h 0.02 1,092 21.84 2 43.7 ? f. Time to Train d i. Material d d NA ii. Control e i 8 1 8 4 32.0 iii. LDAR p i 2 1 2 4 8.0 iv. Container c NA Subtotal Labor hours 943.7 TOTAL LABOR HOURS AND COST Assumptions:

a) Burden calculation based on the assumption that affected facility owners and operators have already complied with the initial r comply with the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements of the rule while reports are developed by the source personnel.

b) This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 85.81 per hour for Managerial labor; $ 57.12 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 36.2 " Table 10: Private Industry, by occupational and industry group".

c) Not applicable because it is not required by the rule.

d) We assume that there will be no new sources over the next three years of this ICR. We also assume that all existing sources ha e) Major sources must submit startup, shutdown, malfunction reports semiannually when actions are taken in the event of a startu f) The rules requires that all sources submit periodic reports ( semiannual or according to the schedule for Title V).

g) Equipment leak standards requires the submittal of an initial report and semiannual reports of leak detection and repair ( LDAR initiation of a quality improvement program. We have assumed that sources are submitting the required LDAR information w h) Visual inspection required once per shift. Assumes 3 shifts per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year.

i) We have assumed that there will be some labor hours associated with rule analysis and training per year. Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( F) ( G) ( H)

Management Clerical Total Cost per Hours Hours Labor Cost respondent Per Year Per Year Per Year ( Ex0.05) ( Ex0.1)

@$ 85.81 @$ 36.27 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 ERR ERR 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.4 0.8 $ 520.30 3.2 6.4 $ 4,162.40 3.2 6.4 $ 4,162.40 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.4 0.8 $ 520.30 0.2 0.4 $ 260.15 0.2 0.4 $ 260.15 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 9.6 19.2 $ 12,487.20 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 19.2 38.4 $ 24,974.40 $ 8,000.00 ERR 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 ERR 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 0.2 0.4 $ 260.15 5.2 10.4 $ 6,763.90 1.2 2.4 $ 1,560.90 2.2 4.4 $ 2,843.20 1.6 3.2 $ 2,081.20 0.4 0.8 $ 520.30 47.2 94.4 $ 69,376.95 ERR 1,085.3 $ 69,376.95 ial requirements including the instalation of any required equipment. In addition, we have assumed that two sources under this category ( or 40 percen el.

6.27 per hour for Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2001.

s have already complied with this one time activity.

tartup, shutdown, or malfunction that are consistent with the source's startup, shutdown, malfunction plan. Sources can submit this information with th AR) program experiences and any changes to the processes, monitoring frequency and n with the periodic reports. cent of the total) use contractors to h the periodic reports. Table 2b. Annual AR Production Industry Burden and Cost: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air P ( A) ( B) ( C) ( D) ( E) ( F)

Hours per Number of Hours Respondents Technical Management Notes Occurrence Occurrences Per Respondent Per Year Hours Hours Per Respondent Per Year Per Year Per Year Per Year ( C= AxB) ( E= CxD) ( Ex0.05)

Burden Item a, b @$ 57.12 @$ 85.81 1. Applications c NA 2. Surveys and St c NA 3. Reporting Requ d a. Read instru d 4 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 b. Required ac d cluded in Section 4c c. Create infor d cluded in Section 4c d. Gather existing informationcluded in Section 4c e. Write reports i. Initial re d 52 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 ii. Startup/ e 2 1 2 2 4.0 0.2 iii. Periodi f 8 2 16 2 32.0 1.6 iv. LDAR g 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 4. Recordkeeping Requirements a. Read Instruc d 4 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 b. Plan Activiti d 40 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 c. Implement Activities i. Material d d NA ii. Control equipment inspection  Tanks 2 12 24 2 48.0 2.4  Closed vent system 2 2 4 2 8.0 0.4 iii. Control equipment leak monitoring  Cover vented to control d 1 2 2 2 4.0 0.2  Closed vent system 1 2 2 2 4.0 0.2 iv. Control devices  Initial d 80 0 0 2 0.0 0.0  Operate and maintain CM 8 12 96 2 192.0 9.6 v. LDAR program  Initial r d 20 0 0 0 0.0 0.0  Perform monitoring/ repai 16 12 192 2 384.0 19.2 vi. Containe c NA d. Develop Rec d i. Develop startup/ shutdown/ m 20 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 ii. Control equipment 16 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 iii. LDAR p g 40 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 e. Record Information ( all information required by standard)

i Initial req d 17 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 ii. Control equipment inspecti 1 2 2 2 4.0 0.2 iii. Control h 1 52 52 2 104.0 5.2 iv. Control device CMS 1 12 12 2 24.0 1.2 vii. LDAR program 2 12 24 2 48.0 2.4 f. Time to Train d i. Material d d NA ii. Control e i 8 1 8 2 16 0.8 iii. LDAR p i 2 1 2 2 4 0.2 iv. Container c NA Subtotal Labor hours 876 43.8 TOTAL LABOR HOURS AND COST 1,007.4 Assumptions a) Burden calculation based on the assumption that affected facility owners and operators have already complied with the initial requirements includ b) This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 85.81 per hour for Managerial labor; $ 57.12 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 36.27 per hour for Cle " Table 10: Private Industry, by occupational and industry group".

c) Not applicable because it is not required by the rule.

d) We assume that there will be no new sources over the next three years of this ICR. We also assume that all existing sources have already comp e) Major sources must submit startup, shutdown, malfunction reports semiannually when actions are taken in the event of a startup, shutdown, or m f) The rules requires that all sources submit peridic reports ( semiannual or according to the schedule for Title V).

g) Equipment leak standards requires the submittal of an initial report and semiannual reports of leak detection and repair ( LDAR) program experien initiation of a quality improvement program. We have assumed that sources are submitting the required LDAR information with the periodic rep h) We have assumed that control equipment monitoring will occur 7 days per week or 52 weeks per year.

i) We have assumed that there will be some labor hours associated with rule analysis and training per year. ir Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( G) ( H)

Clerical Total Cost per Hours Labor Cost respondent Per Year Per Year ( Ex0.1)

@$ 36.27 0.0 $ 0.00 ERR ERR 0.0 $ 0.00 0.4 $ 260.15 3.2 $ 2,081.20 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 $ 0.00 4.8 $ 3,121.80 0.8 $ 520.30 0.4 $ 260.20 0.4 $ 260.20 0.0 $ 0.00 19.2 $ 12,487.20 0.0 $ 0.00 38.4 $ 24,974.40 ERR 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 $ 0.00 ERR 0.0 $ 0.00 0.4 $ 260.20 10.4 $ 6,763.90 2.4 $ 1,560.90 4.8 $ 3,121.80 1.6 $ 1,040.60 0.4 $ 260.20 87.6 $ 56,973.10 ERR $ 56,973.10 cluding the instalation of any required equipment.

Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2001.

mplied with this one time activity.

or malfunction that are consistent with the source's startup, shutdown, malfunction plan. Sources can submit this information with the periodic reports.

eriences and any changes to the processes, monitoring frequency and c reports. rts. Table 2c. Annual HF Production Industry Burden and Cost: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air P ( A) ( B) ( C) ( D) ( E) ( F)

Hours per Number of Hours Respondents Technical Management Notes Occurrence Occurrences Per Respondent Per Year Hours Hours Per Respondent Per Year Per Year Per Year Per Year ( C= AxB) ( E= CxD) ( Ex0.05)

Burden Item a, b @$ 57.12 @$ 85.81 1. Applications c NA 2. Surveys and St c NA 3. Reporting Requ d a. Read instru d 4 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 b. Required ac d cluded in Section 4c c. Create infor d cluded in Section 4c d. Gather existing informationcluded in Section 4c e. Write reports i. Initial re d 52 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 ii. Startup/ e 2 1 2 1 2.0 0.1 iii. Periodi f 8 2 16 1 16.0 0.8 iv. LDAR g 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 4. Recordkeeping Requirements a. Read Instruc d 4 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 b. Plan Activiti d 40 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 c. Implement Activities i. Material d d NA ii. Control equipment inspection  Tanks NA  Closed vent system 2 2 4 1 4.0 0.2 iii. Control equipment leak monitoring  Cover vented to control d 1 2 2 1 2.0 0.1  Closed vent system 1 2 2 1 2.0 0.1 iv. Control devices  Initial d 80 0 0 1 0.0 0.0  Operate and maintain CM 8 12 96 1 96.0 4.8 v. LDAR program  Initial r d 20 0 0 0 0.0 0.0  Perform h 0.1 1,092 192 1 192.0 9.6 vi. Containe c NA d. Develop Rec d i. Develop startup/ shutdown/ m 20 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 ii. Control equipment 16 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 iii. LDAR p g 40 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 e. Record Information ( all information required by standard)

i Initial req d 17 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 ii. Control equipment inspecti 1 2 2 1 2.0 0.1 iii. Control h 1 52 52 1 52.0 2.6 iv. Control device CMS 1 12 12 1 12.0 0.6 vii. LDAR g, h 0.02 1,092 21.84 1 21.8 1.1 f. Time to Train d i. Material d d NA ii. Control e i 8 1 8 1 8.0 0.4 iii. LDAR p i 2 1 2 1 2.0 0.1 iv. Container c NA Subtotal Labor hours 411.8 20.6 TOTAL LABOR HOURS AND COST 473.6 Assumptions:

a) Burden calculation based on the assumption that affected facility owners and operators have already complied with the initial requirements includ comply with the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements of the rule while reports are developed by the source personnel.

b) This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 85.81 per hour for Managerial labor; $ 57.12 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 36.27 per hour for Cle " Table 10: Private Industry, by occupational and industry group".

c) Not applicable because it is not required by the rule.

d) We assume that there will be no new sources over the next three years of this ICR. We also assume that all existing sources have already comp e) Major sources must submit startup, shutdown, malfunction reports semi annually when actions are taken in the event of a startup, shutdown, or m f) The rules requires that all sources submit periodic reports ( semiannual or according to the schedule for Title V).

g) Equipment leak standards requires the submittal of an initial report and semiannual reports of leak detection and repair ( LDAR) program experien initiation of a quality improvement program. We have assumed that sources are submitting the required LDAR information with the periodic rep h) Visual inspection required once per shift. Assumes 3 shifts per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year.

i) We have assumed that there will be some labor hours associated with rule analysis and training per year. r Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( G) ( H)

Clerical Total Cost per Hours Labor Cost respondent Per Year Per Year ( Ex0.1)

@$ 36.27 0.0 $ 0.00 ERR ERR 0.0 $ 0.00 0.2 $ 130.10 1.6 $ 1,040.60 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 $ 0.00 0.4 $ 260.15 0.2 $ 130.10 0.2 $ 130.10 0.0 $ 0.00 9.6 $ 6,243.60 0.0 $ 0.00 19.2 $ 12,487.20 ERR 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 $ 0.00 0.0 $ 0.00 ERR 0.0 $ 0.00 0.2 $ 130.10 5.2 $ 3,381.95 1.2 $ 780.45 2.2 $ 1,418.54 0.8 $ 520.30 0.2 $ 130.10 41.2 $ 26,783.40 ERR $ 26,783.40 cluding the instalation of any required equipment. In addition, we have assumed that 40 percent of the existing sources under this category use contrac Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2001.

mplied with this one time activity.

or malfunction that are consistent with the source's startup, shutdown, malfunction plan. Sources can submit this information with the periodic reports eriences and any changes to the processes, monitoring frequency and c reports. tractors to orts. Table 1. Annual Agency Burden and Cost: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollut Control Technology ( A) ( B) ( C) ( D)

EPA Number of Technical Annual Indirect Notes Hours per Occurences Hours Cost CBP? Notes Occurence Per Year Per Year ( CBP's are excluded) ( C= AxB)

Burden Item a @$ 38.30 1. Review reports Initial Requirements: b NA a. Initial notificP& P b 2 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 b. Performanc Table 3 b, c 2 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 ? c. ComplianceP& P b 4 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 d. Performanc Table 3 b, c 4 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 Periodic Requirements:

a. Startup/ shuTable 3 d 0 0.0 0.0 $ 0.00 b. Periodic repTable 3 d 3 20.0 60.0 $ 0.00 c. LDAR RepTable 3 e 0 0 0 $ 0.00 2. Compliance insTable 3 f a. Select site anTable 3 4 1.3 5.2 $ 598.50 b. Travel to/ from site g 8 1.3 10.4 $ 0.00 c. On site inspection 4 1.3 5.2 $ 0.00 d. Prepare inspTable 3 16 1.3 20.8 $ 0.00 ? 3. Enforcement action h a. Notice of non compliance 160 0.6 96.0 $ 0.00 ? b. Follow up cP& P 32 0.6 19.2 $ 0.00 Total 216.8 $ 598.50 Assumptions a  This cost is based on an average hourly labor rate of a GS 12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for g and Management ( OPM) " 2002 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay.

b  We have assumed that there will be no new sources over the next three years of this ICR. We have also assumed that all exist ( e. g., notifications, initial performance test and test results).

c  We have assumed that the Agency will not have additional burden from sources conducting performance tests due to a proces d  We have assumed that all sources have already developed a startup, shutdown and malfunction plan. We have further assume e  The equipment leak standards requires the submittal of an initial report and semiannual reports of leak detection and repair ( LD initiation of a quality improvement program. We have assumed that sources are submitting the required LDAR information w f  We have assumed that the Agency will conduct one inspection per source category ( or 4 inspections) over the three year perio g  The indirect costs are associated with the expenses ( e. g., per diem, flight tickets, etc.) of one person traveling to and from the s we estimated the amount to be $ 598.5/ year ( 1 person * 1.33 plants/ year * 3 days/ plant * $ 75 per diem) + ($ 150 round trip/ pl h  We have assumed that there will be at least two enforcement actions over the three year period of this ICR. llutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable ( E) ( F)

Total Cost Total Cost ( C* 38.30) + D Per Year $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2,451.20 $ 0.00 $ 797.66 $ 398.32 $ 199.16 $ 796.64 $ 3,676.80 $ 735.36 $ 9,055.14 or government overhead expenses for a total of $ 38.30. This rate is from the Office of Planning and xisting sources ( i. e., a total of eleven major sources) have comply with this one time activity cess change that may or may not result in the source meeting additional requirements.

umed that sources are submitting the information on startup, shutdown and malfunction with the periodic report which is submitted on a semiannual ba ( LDAR) program experiences and any changes to the processes, monitoring frequency and n with the periodic reports.

eriod of this ICR.

he site. We have assumed that it takes the inspector three days to visit one plant. Therefore, we p/ plant * 1.33 plants/ year). l basis.