[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62098-62100]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24207]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0004; FRL-8789-02-R8]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants; Colorado; Control of Emissions From Existing
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a Clean
Air Act (CAA or the ``Act'') section 111(d) state plan submitted by the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE or the
``Department'') on March 23, 2021. This state plan was submitted to
fulfill the requirements of the CAA and is responsive to the EPA's
promulgation of Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times (EG) for
existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The Colorado state plan
establishes performance standards and other operating requirements for
existing MSW landfills within the State of Colorado and provides for
the implementation and enforcement of those standards and requirements
by the Department. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 9, 2021. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of December 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0004. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Reibach, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-TRM, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our July
1, 2021 proposed rule (86 FR 35044). In that document we proposed to
approve the Colorado CAA section 111(d) state plan for existing MSW
landfills as the plan was submitted by the CDPHE on March 23, 2021. The
EPA's analysis of the Colorado state plan may be found in the
aforementioned proposed rule and the technical support document (TSD)
associated with the docket for today's action. Comments on the EPA's
proposed approval of the state plan for existing MSW landfills were due
on or before August 2, 2021. We received feedback from two commenters
during the public comment period opened by the proposed rule. Our
responses to the comments are addressed in section II. below.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: Commenter, which represents solid waste management
professionals, stated that Colorado's state plan should include all
standards outlined in the Federal Plan Requirements for MSW Landfills
(40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO), as the Colorado state plan currently
includes standards from the Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times
for MSW Landfills (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf). The commenter cites
significant differences for ``legacy controlled landfills,'' between
the state plan and the federal plan, with the federal plan exempting
``legacy-controlled landfills'' from tasks that they completed under 40
CFR part 60, subpart WWW; subpart GGG of this part; or a state plan
implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc. Without these exemptions, the
commenter asserts that Colorado's plan indirectly imposes additional
administrative requirements for these ``legacy controlled landfills''
that would not apply if Colorado adopted the language of the federal
plan. The commenter urges EPA to ask the CDPHE to adopt the federal
plan standards and withdraw their state plan.
    Response: Section 111(d) of the CAA gives EPA the authority to
prescribe regulations for states to submit plans that establish
standards of performance for certain existing sources of air
pollutants. Section 111(d) plans adress existing sources for any air
pollutant for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which
is not included on a list published under section 108(a) of the CAA,
but to which a standard of performance would apply if such existing
source were a new source. CAA Section 111(d) also requires states to
provide in their plans the implementation and enforcement of such
standards of performance. In addition, CAA section 111(d)(2)(A)
provides EPA with the authority to establish and enforce a plan in
cases where the state fails to submit a satisfactory plan. 40 CFR 62.13
addresses instances where a state has failed to submit a satisfactory
plan. Commenter should reference 40 CFR 62.13(b) which states,
``[a]fter June 21, 2021, per paragraph (j) of this section, the
substantive requirements of the MSW landfills Federal plan are
contained in subpart OOO of this part and owners and operators of MSW
landfills must comply with subpart OOO of this part or a state/tribal
plan implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf of this chapter . . .''
    As stated in our proposal, Colorado's 111(d) state plan for MSW
landfills meets all requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf of
this chapter. The commenter does not state that Colorado's 111(d) state
plan for MSW landfills does not meet the requirements under 40 CFR part
60, subpart Cf of this chapter, but asks EPA to request that Colorado
withdraw their state plan

because it does not contain language for ``legacy-controlled
landfills.'' EPA is aware of the differences between Colorado's plan
which meets the requirements for state plans under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cf and the federal plan requirements under 40 CFR part 62,
subpart OOO. We have discussed these differences in detail with
Colorado, but whether or not Colorado addresses these changes remains
at their discretion since Colorado is in compliance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. Section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA requires EPA to approve a plan if it meets all of the CAA
applicable requirements for state implementation plans. Therefore, we
are approving Colorado's 111(d) state plan for MSW landfills as meeting
the requirements for 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf of this chapter. Upon
approval of Colorado's 111(d) plan, the Federal plan will no longer
apply to MSW landfills in the State.
    Comment: Commenter stated that establishing performance standards
and operating requirements for MSW landfills is a necessary measure in
tackling air pollution and that air pollutants from landfills can cause
adverse health effects. Commenter further suggests that addressing
these existing MSW landfills could help to achieve the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that are often under non-attainment for
various pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOX), and more. CAA
section 111(d) requires the EPA to establish procedures for requiring
states to submit a plan that establishes standards for their existing
sources. However, Executive Order 12898 states that section 111(d) does
not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or environmental effects. The EPA's
mission is to protect the environment and human health, so the
commenter believes the EPA should have the authority to address these
matters. The only way to achieve better regulations is for federal
agencies to hold sources accountable for their emissions. Using
evidence collected from a nearby MSW landfill of emissions in regard to
human and environmental health, the EPA could uphold section 111(d) and
aid in its overall effectiveness.
    Response: 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf addresses the emission
guidelines and compliance timeframes for MSW landfills in accordance
with section 111(d) of the CAA and subpart B. In particular, subpart Cf
requires CAA 111(d) state plans to address the emissions of landfill
gas for MSW landfills. Commenter suggests that Colorado's CAA 111(d)
plan could help Colorado achieve the NAAQS, however that is beyond the
scope of CAA 111(d) and the regulations for MSW landfills (found in 40
CFR part 60, subpart Cf). Our authority in reviewing the State's
submission is limited to evaluating whether it meets the requirements
of the MSW landfill emission guidelines. We evaluated this in our
proposal, finding that the State of Colorado met the requirements of
the MSW landfill emission guidelines for landfill gas. See 86 FR 35044
(July 1, 2021) and related docket # EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0004. The EPA does
not, in the context of this action, have the authority to require the
State to regulate pollutants beyond ``landfill gas,'' which is
comprised primarily of carbon dioxide and methane, with smaller amounts
of other gases, including nitrogen, oxygen, and non-methane organic
compounds. CAA 111(d) state plans implementing the regulations under
subpart Cf for emission guidelines do not cover the additional
pollutants named by the commenter.
    EPA acknowledges the commenter's desire for this action to address
disproportionate human health and environmental effects, and as an
agency, we strive to incorporate environmental justice considerations
into our actions and decisions. However, since this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
any additional requirements, this action does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or
environmental effects. While the commenter states that the only way to
achieve better regulations is for federal agencies to hold sources
accountable for their emissions, we believe that we are holding MSW
landfill sources accountable for their emissions with this Colorado
plan since the state plan meets the requirements for MSW landfills
under CAA 111(d) and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is finalizing approval of Colorado's CAA section 111(d)
plan for MSW landfills. The state plan was submitted in full compliance
with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf. Therefore,
the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart G to reflect this approval
action. This approval is based on the rationale provided in section II
of the proposed rule for this action (86 FR 35044) and discussed in
detail in the TSD associated with this rulemaking action. The Agency's
approval is in accordance with the general provisions of plan approval
found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and in part 62, subpart A of that
Title and is pursuant to the Agency's role under 42 U.S.C. 7411(d). The
EPA's approval of the Colorado plan is limited to those landfills that
meet the criteria established in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf and grants
the State authority to implement and enforce the performance standards
and source requirements of the EG, except in those cases where
authorities are specifically reserved for the EPA Administrator or his
designee. Authorities retained by the EPA Administrator are those
listed in 40 CFR 60.30f(c).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are
finalizing regulatory text that includes the incorporation by reference
of 5 CCR 1001-8 from the Code of Colorado Regulations (CCR), as
effective on July 15, 2020. 5 CCR 1001-8 is part of the Colorado CAA
section 111(d) state plan applicable to existing MSW landfills. The
regulatory provisions of this section of the CCR incorporate the
required CAA 111(d) state plan elements required by the EG for existing
MSW landfills promulgated at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. This
incorporation establishes emission standards and compliance times for
the control of air pollutants from certain MSW landfills that commenced
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or before July 17,
2014. The emissions standards and compliance times established within
this CCR section and the Colorado state plan are at least as stringent
as those required by the EG for existing MSW landfills. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, 5 CCR 1001-8 (as well as the Colorado
state plan documents for existing MSW landfills) generally available
electronically through www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2021-0004 and at the EPA Region 8 office (please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information). This incorporation by reference has
been approved by the Office of the Federal Register and the Plans are
federally enforceable under the CAA as of the effective date of this
final rulemaking.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve section
111(d) state plan submissions that comply with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d);

40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf, and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Thus,
in reviewing CAA section 111(d) state plan submissions, the EPA's role
is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of
the Act and implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the Colorado CAA 111(d) state plan for existing MSW
landfills is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 10, 2022. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Landfills, Methane, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 1, 2021.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Revise Sec. Sec.  62.1350, 62.1351, and 62.1352 to read as follows:

Sec.  62.1350  Identification of plan.

    Section 111(d) State Plan for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and
the associated State regulations contained in the Code of Colorado
Regulations (CCR) at 5 CCR 1001-8 part A, subpart Cf (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  62.1490), submitted by the State on March 23,
2021.

Sec.  62.1351  Identification of sources.

    The plan applies to all existing municipal solid waste landfills
under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment for which construction, reconstruction, or modification was
commenced on or before July 17, 2014, and are subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.

Sec.  62.1352  Effective date.

    The effective date of the plan for existing municipal solid waste
landfills is December 9, 2021.
0
3. Add an undesignated center heading and Sec.  62.1490 to read as
follows:

Incorporation by Reference

Sec.  62.1490  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The material incorporated by reference in this subpart was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material may be inspected
or obtained from the EPA Region 8 office, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
CO 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER> or from the other sources listed in this
section. It may also be inspected at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email [email protected] or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (b) State of Colorado, Colorado Department of State, 1700 Broadway,
Suite 550, Denver, CO 80290,<PHONE_NUMBER>, https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/NumericalDeptList.do, Code of Colorado
Regulations (CCR).
    (1) 5 CCR 1001-8, part A, subpart Cf: Department of Public Health
and Environment--Air Quality Control Commission--Regulation Number 6--
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources--5 CCR 1001-8. Part
A--Federal Register Regulations Adopted by Reference, Subpart Cf--
Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf (July 1, 2019), as amended March
26, 2020; effective July 15, 2020; IBR approved for Sec.  62.1350.
    (2) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2021-24207 Filed 11-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 34564-34565]
[DOCID:fr16jy09-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13487-000]

FFP Project 77, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

July 9, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 77, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Cow Island Bend Hydrokinetic
Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in Crittenden County,
Arkansas; DeSoto County, Mississippi; and Shelby County, Tennessee.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a license 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 Cow Island Bend Hydrokinetic Project consists of: (1)
3,802 proposed 40 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 152.08 megawatts; (2) a 5-mile-long, 69 kilovolt
transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Cow
Island Bend Hydrokinetic Project would have an average annual
generation of 666 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Vice President of
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 33 Commercial Street,
Gloucester, MA 01930; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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.
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 under the ``e-Filing'' link.
If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To
paper-file, an original and eight copies should be mailed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more information on how to
submit these types of filings please go to the Commission's Web site
located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. 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-
13487) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16852 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (40 CFR part 63, subpart LL) (Renewal)

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standards for primary aluminum reduction plants were proposed on September 26, 1996, promulgated on October 7, 1997 and amended on November 2, 2005.  These standards apply to the owner or operator of the affected facilities which include new or existing potlines, paste production plants, or anode bake furnaces associated with primary aluminum production and located at a major source, and for each new pitch storage tank associated with a primary aluminum reduction plant.

In general, all the NESHAP standards implement Section 12(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and are based on the Administrator’s determination that primary aluminum reduction plants emit or have the potential to emit hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).  The standards ensure that all major sources of air toxic emissions achieve a level of control at least as low as the better controlled and lower emitting sources in each category.  This involves the installation, operation and maintenance of particulate control devices such as electrostatic precipitators or scrubbers.

The major HAPs emitted by these facilities include hydrogen fluoride (HF) measured as total fluorides (TF) and polycyclic organic matter (POM).  In addition to HAPs, this standard addresses particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), which are controlled under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

All the NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports according to the general provisions specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A.  With the exception of the performance specifications for continuous emission monitors (CEMs) in the general provisions, which are not applicable to HF CEMs because such specifications have not yet been developed for that device, all the general provisions requirements apply to sources subject to the NESHAP for primary aluminum reduction plants.  Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.  These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to the NESHAP standards.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part will maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report or record.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office.

Approximately 16 existing primary aluminum facilities major sources of hazardous air pollutants are currently subject to the standard, and it is estimated that there will be no new growth in the industry over the next three years.  However, we expect that one source per year will become subject to the standard over the next three years due to the reconstruction of an existing affected facility.  The number of facilities decreased for the renewal of this ICR due to more accurate estimates of the number of existing and new facilities and closure of a few facilities due to economic factors, including cost of energy and market dynamics related to the amount of aluminum being recovered to produce aluminum products.  The average annual cost to industry over the next three years of this Information Collection Request (ICR) is estimated to be $7,130,009 (rounded).

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

The 16 major source facilities in the United States, which are respondents to this ICR, are publicly owned and operated by primary aluminum reduction plants.  None of the facilities are owned by either state, local and tribal agencies or the Federal Government.

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants.  These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.  In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

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

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from hydrogen fluoride (HF), polycyclic organic matter (POM), and particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) from primary aluminum reduction plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NESHAP were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LL.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The control of emissions of HAP emissions from HF, POM and PM10, and HAPs from primary aluminum reduction plants requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment.  These emissions are the result of operation of specific point sources at these plants including potlines, paste production plants, pitch storage tanks and anode bake furnaces.  The subject standards are achieved by the capture of particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter from paste production plants.

The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the regulations are being met.  Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.  The excess emissions reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NESHAP continue to operate the control equipment and achieve continuous compliance with the regulation.  The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.  Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act.  The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

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

subpart LL.

3(a)  Nonduplication

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

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

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register 72 FR 10735 on March 9, 2007.  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

	The assumptions made in the development of this ICR, including the estimate on the number of primary aluminum reduction plants subject to the NESHAP subpart LL rule, were reviewed and updated by the Agency in consultation with Mr. Robert Strieter of the Aluminum Association, who in turn consulted with some of the committee members.

	In addition, we consulted the Agency’s internal data sources including Donnalee Jones, the Agency contact for the residual risk rule on the primary aluminum industry sector, and the AFS (AIRS Facility Subsystem), which is the EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of all compliance data.  The information in AFS is reported by industry, in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting provisions in the standard.  AFS is operated and maintained by the Office of Compliance at EPA.  We have estimated that there are approximately 16 existing respondents subject to the standard and no new sources will become subject to the standard over the three year period covered by this ICR.

	The Agency also has the policy to respond after a thorough review of comments received from the public since the last ICR renewal as well as those submitted in response to the first Federal Register.  In this case, no comments were received.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

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

3(e)  General Guidelines

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

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

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B - Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are primary aluminum reduction facilities.  The United States Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for the respondents affected by the standards is SIC 3334 which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 331312 for Primary Production of Aluminum.

4(b)  Information Requested

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

(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that are recorded and/or reported are required by National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (40 CFR

part 63, subpart LL).

A source must make the following reports:

Notifications

Notification and application of construction/reconstruction.	63.05

Notification of initial compliance status.	63.850(a)(6)

Notification of compliance approach.	63.850(a)(8)

Initial notification when source becomes subject to standard.	63.9(b) and 63.850(a)

One-time notification for each affected source of the intent to use an HF continuous emission monitor.	63.850(a)(7)

Performance test results/reports.	63.10(d)(2), 63.850(a)(5) and 63.850(b)

Initial performance test.	63.07(b) and 63.09(e)

Rescheduled initial performance test.	63.07(b)(2)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system, if applicable.	63.09(g)

Compliance status including excess emissions report.	63.09(h)

Reports

Opacity or visible emissions.	63.10(d)(3), 63.845(h),and 63.845(i)

Periodic startup, shutdown, malfunction reports and, if applicable, implementation plan.	63.10(d)(5)(I) and 63.850(c)

Semiannual reports are required for periods of operation during which measured emissions exceed an applicable limit.  If control device operating parameters are outside of the established ranges, quarterly reports are required as a result of excess emissions.	63.859(d)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Startup, shutdown, malfunction periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative.	63.10(b)(2)

Emission test results and other data needed to determine emissions. 63.13(g)

All reports and notifications.	63.10(b)

A copy of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and if applicable, of the implementation plan for emissions averaging.	63.850(e)(4)

Record of applicability.	63.10(b)(3)

Records for sources with continuous monitoring systems (CEMS) if it were used.	63.10(b)(3)

Records are required to be retained for five years.  The most recent two years of records must be retained at the facility.	63.850(e)(1-2)

Aluminum production rate and anode production.	63.850(e)(4)

Records associated with an owner or operator request to monitor similar potlines, to perform reduced sampling, or to establish and alternative limit for a HF CEM system.	63.850(e)(4)

Design information for paste production plant capture systems and alternative control devices.	63.850(e)(4)

Emissions values from process and control devices.	63.859(e)(4)

Documentation that daily inspections of process and control devices were performed and corrective action(s) taken as required.	63.859(e)(4)

Electronic Reporting

Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides parameter data in an automated way, e.g., hydrogen fluoride and polycyclic organic matter emit HAPs from these facilities.  Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.  In addition, electronic reporting is increasingly allowed by regulatory agencies which, in turn, reduces the reporting burden.  At this time, it is estimated that approximately 50 percent of the respondents use electronic recordkeeping.

(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

If approved by the appropriate regulatory agency, a respondent may install, calibrate, maintain, and operate an HF CMS for the monitoring of TF secondary emissions as an alternative method.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous parameter monitor for each emission control device including dry alumina scrubbers, dry coke scrubbers, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators and wet roof scrubbers.

Perform performance test using reference methods specified in Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 including initial performance test.  An alternative test method for TF and POM emissions may be used provided the owner or operator has demonstrated the equivalency of the alternative method to a specific plant and has received previous approval from the applicable regulatory authority for its use, or it meets the criteria specified in sections 63.848(d)(1) and (d)(3) through (d)(6).

Comply with emission monitoring requirements to measure TF, POM and opacity as required.

Write the notification and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

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

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

Currently, sources are using automated monitoring equipment that provides parameter data.  Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

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

5(a)  Agency Activities

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

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports conducted for anode bake furnaces and potlines, as well as for primary and secondary control systems, are used to discern the source’s initial capability to comply with the standards and note the operating conditions under which compliance will be achieved.  The regulatory authority will use performance test reports or design evaluation findings for pitch storage tanks to determine initial compliance with the standard.  The semiannual emission reports, unless quarterly reports are required as a result of excess emissions, are used by the regulatory authority for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

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

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

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

A majority of the affected facilities are large entities (e.g., large businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities.  The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Cost and Burden: NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (40 CFR part 63, subpart LL).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

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

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 80,046 hours (Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$105.86 ($50.41 + 110%)

Technical	$92.61   ($44.10 + 110%)

Clerical	$45.32  ($21.58 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2006, Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group. The rates are from column 1, Total compensation.  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

 (ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activities in the subject standards are labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in the ICR and the costs associated with continuous monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitors and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

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

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

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents 	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents  with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

HF CEMs (similar potlines)	$100,000	0	$0	$1,669	16	$26,704

Method 14 (manifolds at potlines)	$200,000	0	$0	$3,339	12	$40,068

Method 14A (alcan cassettes)	$92,000	0	$0	$1,536	16	$24,576

Total

	$0

	$91,348

There is no annualized capital/startup cost for this ICR, as identified in the total of column D of the above table.  The total operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for this ICR are $91,348, as identified in the total of column G of the above table.  Therefore, the total annualized capital/startup cost and the operation and maintenance cost to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $91,348.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

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

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $10,247.  This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial	$58.18   (GS-13, Step 5, $36.36 + 60%)

Technical	$43.17   (GS-12, Step 1, $26.98+ 60%)

Clerical	$23.36   (GS-6, Step 3, $14.60 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 2007 General Schedule which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Annual Burden and Cost to the Federal/State Government: NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (40 CFR part 63, subpart LL).

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

Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 16 existing primary aluminum reduction plants are currently subject to the standard.  It is estimated that no expected additional sources per year will become subject to the standard in the next three years.

The number of respondents over the three years period of this ICR is calculated using the following table:

Number of Respondents

	Respondents That Submit Reports	Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports

	Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents 1	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

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

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

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	1	16	0	1	16

2	1	16	0	1	16

3	1	16	0	1	16

Average	1	16	0	1	16

As shown in the above table, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of this ICR is 16.  Please note that new respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed and modified affected facilities.  To avoid double-counting respondents, the total number of respondents that are also new respondents in column D is subtracted.  In this standard, existing respondents that are also new respondents are required to submit initial notifications.

The average number of annual responses over the three year period of this ICR is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents  	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

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

Total Annual  Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of applicability	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of construction//reconstruction	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of actual startup	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of initial performance test	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of compliance status/approach	1	1	N/A	1

Semiannual report of monitoring exceedances	1.6	2	N/A	3.2

Semiannual report of no excess emissions	14.4	2	N/A	28.8

Startup, shutdown, malfunction report	1.6	2	N/A	3.2

Total

40.2

As shown on the above table, the Total Annual Responses is 40 (rounded).  This estimate is based on the assumption that the results from the monthly, quarterly and annual performance tests will be submitted with the semiannual compliance reports.

The total annual labor burden and costs to industry are 80,046 hours and $7,130,009, respectively.  The details regarding the respondent total labor burden and costs are found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (40 CFR part 63, subpart LL), attached.

The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity are $91,348, as discussed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs, above.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents are attached.  The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2,001 (rounded) hours per response.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

The decrease in labor burden to industry from the most recently approved ICR is due a decrease in the number of existing primary aluminum reduction plants that are subject to NESHAP subpart LL.  The number of facilities decreased for the renewal of this ICR due to a more accurate estimate of the number of existing facilities subject to the rule and closure of a few facilities due to economic factors, including cost of energy and market dynamics related to the amount of aluminum being recovered to produce aluminum products.  The reduction in the number of respondents to this ICR also resulted in a decrease on the average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR.

In addition, there was a decrease in the burden to the Federal/State government in the renewal of the ICR is due to the decrease in the number of respondents.  The costs associated with regulators attending performance tests were also removed from this ICR because this is an enforcement activity related to case development and, therefore, exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2,001 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; to train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0127.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents are also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the docket center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0127 and OMB Control Number 2060-0360 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

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

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 1.  Annual Respondent Burden and cost: NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (40 CFR Part 63,  Subpart LL)

Burden item	(A)

Person-

hours per

occurrence	(B)

No. of

occurrences

per respondent

per year	(C)

Person-

hours per

respondent

per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Respondents

per year	(E)

Technical

person-

hours per

year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(E=0.05)	(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Total Cost per year, $ a

1. Applications	N/A

	2. Survey and Studies	N/A

	3. Acquisition, Installation, and

   Utilization of Technology and

   Systems

8

1

8

1 b

8.0

0.4

0.8

819.48

4. Reporting Requirements

A. Read instructions	4	1	4	1 b	21.2	1.1	2.1	409.74

B. Required activities

   Initial performance test 	100 c	1	100	1 b	120	6.0	12.0	12,292.20

   Annual performance test 	100 c	5.1 d	510	16 e	8160.0	408.0	816.0 835,,869.60

   Monthly performance test

   (Method 13/14)	200 f	12	2400	12 g	28800.0	1440.0	2880.0	2,950,128.00

   Monthly performance test

   (CEM or Alcan cassette)	40 h	18 i	720	16	11520.0	800.0	1600.0 1,180,051.20

   Quarterly performance test	200 j	16 k	3200	2 l	6400.0	320.0	640 655,584.00

   Daily monitoring 	2 	365	730	16	11,680.0	584.0	1,168.0	1,196,440.80

C. Create information	See 4B

	D. Gather existing information	See 4B

	E. Write report

   Notification of applicability	2	1	2	1 b 	2.0	0.1	0.2	204.87

    Notification of

    construction./reconstruction 	2	1	2	1 b 	2.0	0.1	0.2	204.87

   Notification of actual startup	2	1	2	1 b	2.0	0.1	0.2	204.87

   Notification of special

   compliance requirements	N/A

	   Notification of performance test	2	1	2	16 b	32.0	1.6	3.2	3,277.92

   Notification of compliance

   status	4	1	4	16 b	64.0	3.2	6.4	6,555.84

   NESHAP waiver application	N/A

	   Report of performance test	See 4B

	   Report of monitoring

   exceedances	16	2 m	32	1.6 n	51.2	2.56	5.1	5,244.67

   Report of no excess emissions	8	2 m	16	14.4 o	230.4	11.5	23.0 23,601.02

   Startup, shutdown, malfunction

   report	8	2 m	16	1.6  p	25.6	1.3	2.6	2,622.34

   Startup, shutdown, malfunction

   plan	40	1	40	1 b 	0.0	 0.0	0.0	0.00

5.  Recordkeeping Requirements

A.  Read instructions	See 4B

	B.  Plan activities	N/A

	C.  Implement activities	See 4B

	D.  Develop record system	N/A

	E.  Time to enter information

  Records of all information

  required by standards	3 q	52 q	156	16	2496.0	124.8	249.6	255,677.76

F.  Time to train personnel	N/A

	G.  Time to adjust existing ways t          to comply with previously

applicable requirements

N/A

	H.  Time to transmit or disclose

Information	0.25 r	2 m	0.5	16	8.0	0.4	0.8	819.48

I.  Time for audits	N/A

	Subtotal

	69,605.2	3,480.3	6,960.5	7,130,008.66

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (Rounded)

	80,046	7,130,009

Assumptions:

a This ICR uses the following labor rates: $105.86 for Managerial labor, $92.61 for Technical labor, and $45.32 for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2006, (Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group.(  The rates are  from column 1, (Total compensation.(  The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

b Assumes that one plant per year will have to comply with initial rule requirements due to a reconstruction of an affected facility (i.e., pitch storage tank).  It is assumed that the plant has a startup, shutdown and malfunction plan in place.

c Assumes it takes 100 hours each for Method 13 and Method 315 for primary controls of potlines and bake furnaces.

d Assumes 59 Method 13 tests and 22 Method 315 tests will be conducted each year (primary control systems) for a total of 81 tests for 16 respondents (81/16 = 5.1 per respondent).

e Assumes that there are 16 primary aluminum plants subject to this standard.  f Assumes it takes 200 hours for Method 13/14 for secondary emissions from potlines.

g Assumes that 12 potlines must perform manual sampling as a result of the NESHAP.  Testing was already required by the States for other potlines.

h Assumes it takes 40 hours for testing of similar potlines (CEM or Alcan cassette).

i Assumes that 24 potlines will be monitored under the alternative monitoring provisions for similar potlines.  This is 18 per respondent (24*12/16 = 18).

j Assumes it takes 200 hours for a Method 315 test for secondary emissions.

k Assumes that a total of 8 Soderberg potlines at two plants, this is 16 per respondent (8*4/2 = 16).

l Assumes that two Soderberg plants will conduct quarterly performance tests.

m This rule requires that all existing respondents submit semiannual reports.  Performance test results will be submitted with the semiannual reports.

n Assumes that 10 percent fail to meet the standard (0.1 x 16).

o Assumes that 90 percent meet the standard (0.9 x16).

p Assumes that 10 percent must file startup, shutdown, malfunction report (0.1 x 16).

q Assumes it takes 3 hours per week per plant to enter monitoring data into records.

r Assumes it takes 15 minutes to transmit recorded information.

N/A = Not Applicable.

Table 2.  Annual Burden and Cost to the Federal/State Government: NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (40 CFR part 63, subpart LL)

Burden Item	(A)

Person Hours Per Occurrence	(B)

Number  of Occurrences Per Plant Per Year	(C)

Person Hours Per Plant Per Year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Plants Per  Year 	(E)

Technical Hours Per Year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management   Hours Per Year

(F=0.05xE)	(G)

Clerical Hours Per Year

(G=0.1xE)	(H)

Total Costs

Per Year, $ a

New or reconstructed Facilities

Notification of applicability

2

1

2

1 b

2.0

0.1

0.2

96.83

Notification of construction           and reconstruction

2

1

2

1 b

2.0

0.1

0.2

96.83

Notification of actual startup

2

1

2

1 b

2.0

0.1

0.2

96.83

Notification of special                 compliance requirements

N/A

Notification of initial                   performance test

2

1

2

1 b

2.0

0.1

0.2

96.83

Notification of compliance          status

8

1

8

1 b

2.0

0.1

0.2

96.83

Existing Facilities

Review of performance               test report

8

1

8

16 d

128.0

6.4

12.8

6,197.12

Review of excess emissions        report

8

1

8

1.6 c

12.8

0.6

1.3

617.85

Review of no excess                    emissions report

2

2

4

14.4 e

57.6

2.9

5.8

2,790.80

Review of NESHAP waiver        application

N/A

Review of startup, shutdown,      malfunction report

2

1

2

1.6 f

3.2

0.2

0.3

156.79

Subtotal

211.6

10.6

21.2

10,246.71

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN and COST (rounded)

243

10,247

Assumptions:

a This cost is based on the following hourly labor rates times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses: $58.18 for Managerial (GS-13, Step 5, $36.36 + 60%), $43.17 for Technical (GS-12, Step 1, $26.98+ 60%) and $23.36 Clerical (GS-6, Step 3, $14.60 + 60%).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (2007 General Schedule( which excludes locality rates of pay.

b Assumes that one plant per year over the next three years will install a new or reconstructed pitch storage tank.

c Assumes that 10 percent of the 16 plants (1.6) will have excess emissions.

d Assumes that EPA/State personnel will review summary of performance tests requirements to be submitted by all 16 existing plants on an annual basis for purposes of calculating the burden.  However, plants are expected to submit performance test results with the semiannual reports.

e Assumes that the remaining 90 percent of the 16 plants (14.4) will not have excess emissions.

f Assumes that 10 percent of plants per year (1.6) will report a startup, shutdown, malfunction incident.

N/A = Not Applicable.

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   17

 PAGE   4

 PAGE   20


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 37 (Monday, February 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 11962]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03773]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 206(4)-6, SEC File No. 270-513, OMB Control No. 3235-0571.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 206(4)-6''
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.)
(``Advisers Act'') and the collection has been approved under OMB
Control No. 3235-0571. The Commission adopted rule 206(4)-6 (17 CFR
275.206(4)-6), the proxy voting rule, to address an investment
adviser's fiduciary obligation to clients who have given the adviser
authority to vote their securities. Under the rule, an investment
adviser that exercises voting authority over client securities is
required to: (i) Adopt and implement written policies and procedures
that are reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes client
securities in the best interest of clients, including procedures to
address any material conflict that may arise between the interests of
the adviser and the client; (ii) disclose to clients how they may
obtain information from the adviser on how the adviser has voted with
respect to their securities; and (iii) describe to clients the
adviser's proxy voting policies and procedures and, on request, furnish
a copy of the policies and procedures to the requesting client. The
rule is designed to assure that advisers that vote proxies for their
clients vote those proxies in their clients' best interest and provide
clients with information about how their proxies were voted.
    Rule 206(4)-6 contains ``collection of information'' requirements
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The respondents are
investment advisers registered with the Commission that vote proxies
with respect to clients' securities. Advisory clients of these
investment advisers use the information required by the rule to assess
investment advisers' proxy voting policies and procedures and to
monitor the advisers' performance of their proxy voting activities. The
information required by Adviser's Act rule 204-2, a recordkeeping rule,
also is used by the Commission staff in its examination and oversight
program. Without the information collected under the rules, advisory
clients would not have information they need to assess the adviser's
services and monitor the adviser's handling of their accounts, and the
Commission would be less efficient and effective in its programs.
    The estimated number of investment advisers subject to the
collection of information requirements under the rule is 10,942. It is
estimated that each of these advisers is required to spend on average
10 hours annually documenting its proxy voting procedures under the
requirements of the rule, for a total burden of 109,420 hours. We
further estimate that on average, approximately 292 clients of each
adviser would request copies of the underlying policies and procedures.
We estimate that it would take these advisers 0.1 hours per client to
deliver copies of the policies and procedures, for a total burden of
319,506 hours. Accordingly, we estimate that rule 206(4)-6 results in
an annual aggregate burden of collection for SEC-registered investment
advisers of a total of 428,926 hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 21, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03773 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 150)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47215-47217]
[DOCID:fr05au10-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0675]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Marine Events Within the Captain of the
Port Sector Boston Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local
regulations within the Captain of the Port Sector Boston Zone for
several swim events and power boat races. These special local
regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during these events. Entry into, transit through,
mooring or anchoring within these zones is prohibited unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port Sector Boston.

DATES: This rule is effective in the Code of Federal Regulations on
August 5, 2010 through 11:59 p.m. on August 29, 2010. This rule is
effective with actual notice for purposes of enforcement from 7 a.m. on
July 25, 2010 through 11:59 p.m. on August 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0675 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0675 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail MST1 David Labadie, Waterways Management
Division at Coast Guard Sector Boston; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.''
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with
respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive
notification of the specific location or planned dates for the events
in sufficient time to issue a NPRM without delaying this rulemaking.
Delaying the effective date by first publishing a NPRM and holding a
comment period would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring
safety of life on the navigable waters during these scheduled events as
immediate action is needed to protect persons and vessels from the
hazards associated with participation in these marine events. For the
same reasons, the Coast Guard also finds, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3),
that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register.

Basis and Purpose

    This temporary rule is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels
and spectators from hazards associated with marine events. The Captain
of the Port Boston has determined that events in close proximity to
watercraft and waterfront structures pose a significant risk to public
safety and property. The likely combination of a large number of
participants in close proximity to recreational vessels and spectators
poses significant risks of serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing
special local regulations around the location of these events will help
ensure the safety of persons and property and help minimize the
associated risks.
    The Coast Guard has ordered safety zones or special local
regulations for these events in previous years and has not received
public comments or concerns regarding impact to waterway traffic from
these annual events.

Discussion of Rule

    This rule establishes temporary special local regulations on:
    (1) The Charles River between the Longfellow Bridge and the Harvard
Bridge from 8 a.m. through 9 a.m. on July 25, 2010;
    (2) The Merrimack River near Newburyport, MA within a 400 yard
radius of 42[deg]80.4' N, 070[deg]85.4' W from 3 p.m. through 5 p.m. on
July 31, 2010;
    (3) Western Harbor near Gloucester, MA starting at the beach at
position 42[deg]36'34'' N, 070[deg]40'02'' W, thence to 42[deg]36'29''
N, 070[deg]40'04'' W, thence to 42[deg]36'28'' N, 070[deg]40'00'' W,
thence to the beach at position 42[deg]36'33'' N, 070[deg]39'58'' W
from 10 a.m. through 11 a.m. on August 8, 2010;
    (4) Gloucester Harbor near Gloucester, MA within a 400 yard radius
of approximate position 41[deg]35'35'' N, 070[deg]39'45'' W from 9 a.m.
through 12 p.m. on August 21, 2010; and,
    (5) The Merrimack River between the Interstate 495 Highway Bridge
and the Haverhill-Groveland SR97/113 Bridge from 12 p.m. on August 28
through 5 p.m. on August 29, 2010.
    This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of participants,
spectators and vessels during annual swim and high speed races that may
pose a hazard to the public in the Captain of the Port Boston area of
responsibility. The regulated areas will be enforced immediately
before, during, and after the events.
    The Captain of the Port will inform the public about the details of
each swim and high speed race covered by these special local
regulations using a variety of means, including, but not limited to,
Broadcast Notices to Mariners and Local Notices to Mariners.
    All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the
Captain of the Port Boston or designated on scene patrol personnel.
Entry into, transiting through, mooring or anchoring within any of the
regulated areas is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Boston or his designated on scene representative. The Captain of
the Port or his designated on scene representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    The Coast Guard determined that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action for the following reasons: The regulated areas will
be of limited duration, they

cover only a small portion of the navigable waterways, and the events
are designed to avoid, to the extent possible, deep draft, fishing, and
recreational boating traffic routes. In addition, vessels requiring
entry into a regulated area may be authorized to do so by the Captain
of the Port.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
enter into, transit through, moor or anchor within any of the regulated
areas during the enforcement periods.
    These special local regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
regulated areas will be of limited duration, they cover only a small
portion of the navigable waterways, and the events are designed to
avoid, to the extent possible, deep draft, fishing, and recreational
boating traffic routes. In addition, vessels requiring entry into a
regulated area may be authorized to do so by the Captain of the Port.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(h) of the Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist and categorical exclusion determination are

available in the federal docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35-T01-0675 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35-T01-0675  Special Local Regulations; Summer Marine Events,
Coastal Massachusetts.

    (a) General. Special local regulations are established for the
following marine events:
    (1) Charles River One Mile Swim, Charles River, Boston, MA.
    (i) Location. All waters of the Charles River, from surface to
bottom, between the Longfellow Bridge and the Harvard Bridge.
    (ii) Enforcement Date. This regulation will be enforced from 8 a.m.
through 9 a.m. on July 25, 2010.
    (2) Joppa Flats Open Water Mile, Merrimack River, Newburyport, MA
    (i) Location. All waters of the Merrimack River, from surface to
bottom, within a 400 yard radius of position 42[deg]80.4' N;
070[deg]85.4' W.
    (ii) Enforcement Date. This regulation will be enforced from 3 p.m.
through 5 p.m. July 31, 2010.
    (3) Gloucester Fisherman Triathlon, Western Harbor, Gloucester, MA.
    (i) Location. All waters of Western Harbor, from surface to bottom,
starting at the beach at position 42[deg]36'34'' N 070[deg]40'02'' W,
thence to 42[deg]36'29'' N 070[deg]40'04'' W, thence to 42[deg]36'28''
N 070[deg]40'00'' W, thence to the beach at position 42[deg]36'33'' N
070[deg]39'58'' W.
    (ii) Enforcement Date. This regulation will be enforced from 10
a.m. through 11 a.m. on August 8, 2010.
    (4) 32nd Annual Celebrate the Clean Harbor Swim, Gloucester Harbor,
Gloucester, MA.
    (i) Location. All waters of Gloucester Harbor, from surface to
bottom, within a 400 yard radius of approximate position 41[deg]35'35''
N 070[deg]39'45'' W.
    (ii) Enforcement Date. This regulation will be enforced from 9 a.m.
through 12 p.m. on August 21, 2010.
    (5) Haverhill River Run, Merrimack River, Haverhill, MA.
    (i) Location. All waters of the Merrimack River, from surface to
bottom, between the Interstate 495 Highway Bridge and the Haverhill-
Groveland SR97/113 Bridge.
    (ii) Enforcement Date. This regulation will be effective from 12
p.m. on August 28, 2010 to 5 p.m. on August 29, 2010. This regulation
will be enforced daily from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. on both August 28th and
29th, 2010.
    (b) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Section 100.35 of
this part, entry into, and transiting or anchoring within any of these
special local regulation areas is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Boston or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) These special local regulation areas are closed to all vessel
traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Boston
or his designated on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Boston is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Boston to act on his
behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port Boston
will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
The Captain of the Port or his designated on scene representative may
be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within any of the
special local regulation areas must contact the Captain of the Port
Boston or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so.
Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the special
local regulation areas must comply with all directions given to them by
the Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 23, 2010.
John N. Healey,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
[FR Doc. 2010-19291 Filed 8-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P