Revised 1/30/2007 1

 

PAPERWORK REDUCTI ON ACT SUBMI SSI ON WORKSHEET 

PART I : I nf ormat i on Col l ect i on Request 

 

Thi s worksheet repl aces t he previ ous OMB 83-I f orm f or I nf ormat i on Col l ect i on Request s (I CRs). Thi s worksheet i s i nt ended t o hel p I CR 

preparers t ransi t i on bet ween t he paper 83-I syst em and use of t he I nf ormat i on Col l ect i on Request , Revi ew and Approval Syst em (I CRAS) f or 

submi t t i ng I CRs t o OMB. Thi s f orm i s not i nt ended f or submi ssi on t o OMB. For addi t i onal gui dance on compl et i ng t hi s worksheet , pl ease see 

EPA’s I CR websi t e at ht t p://i nt ranet .epa.gov/i cri nt ra/. There you wi l l f i nd t he f ol l owi ng document s: OEI ’s I CRAS I nst ruct i ons (under 

Prepare I CR Package t ab) and OMB’s ROCI S I C Q&A (l ocat ed under t he Downl oad Gui dance t ab), as wel l as t he cont act i nf ormat i on f or your 

appropri at e I CR desk of f i cer. 

1. Agency/Subagency originating request: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2. Title: National Emission Standards for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LL) (Amendments) 

3. Type of Information Collection (check one):

 New collection

 Extension of a currently approved collection

 Revision of a currently approved collection

 Nonmaterial or non-substantive change to a currently approved collection

 (formerly called the 83-C)

4. OMB Control Number (OCN): 

 EPA ICR Number: 2447.01

5. Type of review requested (check one):

 Regular

 Emergency – Approval Requested by: (mm/dd/yy)

 Delegated

(If emergency, please submit justification as a separate attachment)

6. Requested expiration date (check one):

 Three years from approval date

 Six Months from approval date (maximum for emergency)

 Other, please specify: (mm/yy)
Revised 1/30/2007 2

7. Abstract (4000 characters maximum, attach additional sheets as necessary): The NESHAP (or MACT rule) for the Primary Aluminum 

Reduction Plants were promulgated on October 7, 1997 (62 FR 52407) and amended on November 2, 2005 (70 FR 66285) as 40 CFR 63, 

subpart LL. The rule is applicable to facilities with affected sources associated with the production of aluminum by electrolytic reduction. 

The purpose of this information collection request is to document the expected impacts of proposed changes to subpart LL that are being 

developed as part of the risk and technology review process of the current subpart LL. The standards promulgated in 1997 and 2005 apply 

to emissions of HF, measured using total fluorides (TF) as a surrogate, from all potlines and anode bake furnaces, and POM (as measured 

by methylene chloride extractables) from Soderberg potlines, anode bake furnaces, paste production plants and pitch storage tanks 

associated with primary aluminum reduction. Affected sources under the rules are each potline, each anode bake furnace (except for one 

that is located at a facility that only produces anodes for use off-site), each paste production plant, and each new pitch storage tank. The 

EPA is required to review technology-based standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6). 

Compared to existing subpart LL, the proposed changes would establish standards for emissions of POM from prebake potlines, reduce 

the POM emission limit for Soderberg potlines, establish a limit for carbonyl sulfide (COS) emissions from all potlines, and establish a 

design standard for emission controls applicable to existing pitch storage tanks. In addition, the proposed rule would eliminate the startup, 

shutdown and malfunction (SSM) exemption, remove the SSM plan requirement, add provisions to provide an affirmative defense against 

civil penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions and add a requirement for electronic submittal of 

performance tests. 

8. Citations for Authorizing Statute(s):

a. Public Law

 Name of law: 

 Citation: - Sec 

b. US Code 

 Name of Law: Clean Air Act 

 Citation: 42 USC: 7401

c. Executive Order

 Name/Subject of EO: 

 Citation: EO

 

d. Statute at Large

 Name of Statute: 

 Citation: Stat

9. Associated Rulemaking Information (For Rule Related ICRs Only):

RIN: 2060 – AQ92 SAN: Stage of Rulemaking (check one): 

 Proposed Rule 

 Interim Final or Final Rule 

 

For a Proposed Rule, OMB will not consider an ICR complete until the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has been published. OEI will enter this 

information into ICRAS.

For ICRs associated with Interim Finals that are not significant under EO 12866, please attach a draft of the rule.
Revised 1/30/2007 3

10. Federal Register Notices & Comments:

Federal Register Citation (For Non-Rule Related and Renewal ICRs Only):

60-day Notice: Volume: Page number: Publication Date: 

(30-day Notice: Volume: Page number: Publication Date )

Did the Agency receive public comments on this ICR? Yes No

Unless submitted as an Emergency ICR or Associated with a Rulemaking, OMB will not consider an ICR complete until the 30-day notice

has been published. The second notice will be published following OEI review and approval of the ICR. OEI will enter this information into ICRAS.

11. Annual Cost to Federal Government: 3109.00

12. Does this ICR contain surveys, censuses, or employ statistical methods? Yes No

(If Yes, please attach Supporting Statement, Part B)

13. Is a Privacy Impact Assessment required by the E-Government Act of 2002 for this ICR? Yes No

(A PIA is needed for a new, electronic collection of information.)

14. Agency Contact:

 

 Name: David Putney

 

 Phone: 919/541-2016

 

 E-mail: putney.david@epa.gov
Revised 1/30/2007 4

15. Change in Burden:

 

A. Program Change Due to a New Statute

If change in burden is a Program Change Due to a New Statute, identify the Citations for the New Statutory Requirements:

a. Public Law

 Name of law: 

 Citation: - Sec

b. US Code 

 Name of Law: 

 Citation: USC: 

c. Executive Order

 Name/Subject of EO: 

 Citation: EO

 

d. Statute at Large

 Name of Statute: 

 Citation: Stat

B. Program Change Due to Agency Discretion

If change in burden is a DECREASE because of a Program Change due to Agency Discretion, please categorize the decrease (select one):

 Cutting Redundancy

 Using Information Technology

 Changing Regulations

 Changing Forms

 Miscellaneous Actions

If change in burden is a INCREASE because of a Program Change due to Agency Discretion, please categorize the increase (select one):

 Changing Regulations 

 Miscellaneous Actions 

C. Explanation of Change in Burden

Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported; that is, provide a short statement addressing how the reduction in burden 

was achieved or why the increase in burden occurred. (If you need more space, provide a short summary here and elaborate in the Supporting

Statement.)

We are requesting an increase in burden of 1594 hours and $171,170 due to implementation of these proposed changes to the regulation. 
Revised 1/30/2007 5

PAPERWORK REDUCTI ON ACT SUBMI SSI ON WORKSHEET

Par t I I I : I nf or mat i on Col l ect i on Request Compl et eness Check

Compl et e t hi s checkl i st pr i or t o submi t t i ng t he i nf or mat i on col l ect i on package t o t he Cl ear ance Of f i cer . The

Cl ear ance Of f i cer wi l l use t he i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t hi s checkl i st , al ong wi t h ot her i nf or mat i on, t o cer t i f y

t he i nf or mat i on col l ect i on pr i or t o submi ssi on t o OMB. 

The suppor t i ng st at ement (check al l t hat appl y):

a. I dent i f i es t he st at ut e or r egul at i on aut hor i zi ng t he col l ect i on of t he i nf or mat i on

b. Descr i bes ef f or t s t aken t o avoi d t he col l ect i on of si mi l ar i nf or mat i on al r eady avai l abl e, or

col l ect ed under a di f f er ent i nf or mat i on col l ect i on

c. Descr i bes, i f appl i cabl e, met hods t o mi ni mi ze t he bur den on smal l busi nesses or ot her smal l

ent i t i es

d. I s wr i t t en usi ng pl ai n Engl i sh, and al l t er mi nol ogy used i s unambi guous and under st andabl e t o

t hose r equi r ed t o r espond t o t he col l ect i on

e. I ndi cat es how l ong r ecor ds speci f i ed i n t he col l ect i on ar e t o be mai nt ai ned by per sons

r equi r ed t o mai nt ai n t he r ecor ds

f . Has dedi cat ed r esour ces t o ensur e t he pr oper use and pr ocessi ng of t he i nf or mat i on bei ng

col l ect ed t o enhance (as appr opr i at e) t he val ue of t he i nf or mat i on t o agenci es and t he publ i c.

g. I ndi cat es t he use of a st at i st i cal sur vey met hod (i f appl i cabl e) t hat pr oduces val i d and

r el i abl e r esul t s whi l e mi ni mi zi ng undue bur den.

h. Descri bes t he i nt ended use of i nf or mat i on t echnol ogy t o r educe bur den and wher e possi bl e

avoi d unnecessar y syst emand t echnol ogy cost s.
Revised 1/30/2007 6
Revised 1/30/2007 7

PAPERWORK REDUCTI ON ACT SUBMI SSI ON WORKSHEET

Par t I V: Cer t i f i cat i on

Cer t i f i cat i on f or Paper wor k Reduct i on Act Submi ssi ons

On behal f of t hi s Feder al agency, 1 cer t i f y t hat t he col l ect i on of i nf or mat i on encompassed by t hi s r equest compl i es wi t h'

5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The t ext of 5 CFR 1320.9, and t he r el at ed pr ovi si ons of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3), appear at t he end of t he i nst r uct i ons. 

The cer t i f i cat i on i s t o be made wi t h r ef er ence t o t hose r egul at or y pr ovi si ons as set f or t h i n t he

i nst r uct i ons.

The f ol l owi ng i s a summar y of t he t opi cs, r egar di ng t he pr oposed col l ect i on of i nf or mat i on, t hat t he cer t i f i cat i on cover s:

(a) I t i s necessar y f or t he pr oper per f or mance of agency f unct i ons;

(b) I t avoi ds unnecessar y dupl i cat i on;

(c) I t r educes bur den on smal l ent i t i es;

(d) I t uses pl ai n, coher ent , and unambi guous t er mi nol ogy t hat i s under st andabl e t o r espondent s;

(e) I t s i mpl ement at i on wi l l be consi st ent and compat i bl e wi t h cur r ent r epor t i ng and r ecor dkeepi ng pr act i ces;

(f ) I t i ndi cat es t he r et ent i on per i ods f or r ecor dkeepi ng r equi r ement s;

(g) I t i nf or ms r espondent s of t he i nf or mat i on cal l ed f or under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3):

(I ) Why t he i nf or mat i on i s bei ng col l ect ed’

(i i ) Use of i nf or mat i on;

(iii ) Bur den est i mat e;

(i v) Nat ur e of r esponse (vol unt ar y, r equi r ed f or a benef i t , or mandat or y);

(v) Nat ur e and ext ent of conf i dent i al i t y; and

(vi ) Need t o di spl ay cur r ent l y val i d OMB cont r ol number;

(h) I t was devel oped by an of f i ce t hat has pl anned and al l ocat ed r esour ces f or t he ef f i ci ent and ef f ect i ve

management

 and use of t he i nf or mat i on t o be col l ect ed (see not e i n I t em 19 of t he i nst r uct i ons);

(I ) I t uses ef f ect i ve and ef f i ci ent st at i st i cal sur vey met hodol ogy; and

(j ) I t makes appr opr i at e use of i nf or mat i on t echnol ogy.
Revised 1/30/2007 8

Si gnat ur e of Pr ogr amOf f i ci al

Pet er Tsi r i got i s, Di r ect or

Sect or Pol i ci es and Pr ogr ams Di vi si on

Of f i ce of Ai r Qual i t y Pl anni ng and St andar ds

Dat e

Si gnat ur e of Seni or Of f i ci al or desi gnee 

Oscar Mor al es, Di r ect or

 

Col l ect i on St r at egi es Di vi si on

 Of f i ce of

Envi r onment al I nf or mat i on

Dat e
Revised 1/30/2007 9

5 CFR 1320.9 r eads “ As par t of t he agency submi ssi on t o OMB of a pr oposed col l ect i on of i nf or mat i on, t he agency (t hr ough t he

head of t he agency, t he Seni or Of f i ci al or t hei r desi gnee) shal l cer t i f y (and pr ovi de a r ecor d suppor t i ng such cer t i f i cat i on)

t hat t he pr oposed col l ect i on of i nf or mat i on --

 “ (a) i s necessar y f or t he pr oper per f or mance of t he f unct i ons of t he agency, i ncl udi ng t hat t he i nf or mat i on t o be

col l ect ed wi l l have pr act i cal ut i l i t y;

 “ (b) i s not unnecessar i l y dupl i cat i ve of i nf or mat i on ot her wi se r easonabl y accessi bl e t o t he agency;

 “ (c) r educes t o t he ext ent pr act i cabl e and appr opr i at e t he bur den on per sons who shal l pr ovi de i nf or mat i on t o or f or t he

agency, i ncl udi ng wi t h r espect t o smal l ent i t i es, as def i ned i n t he Regul at or y Fl exi bi l i t y Act 5 U.S.C § 601(6)), t he use of

such t echni ques as:

“ (1) est abl i shi ng di f f er i ng compl i ance or r epor t i ng r equi r ement s or t i met abl es t hat t ake i nt o account t he

r esour ces avai l abl e t o t hose who ar e t o r espond;

“ (2) t he cl ar i f i cat i on, consol i dat i on, or si mpl i f i cat i on of compl i ance and r epor t i ng r equi r ement s; or col l ect i on

of i nf or mat i on , or any par t t her eof ;

“ (3) an exempt i on f r omcover age of t he col l ect i on of i nf or mat i on, or any par t t her eof ;

 “ (d) i s wr i t t en usi ng pl ai n, coher ent , and unambi guous t er mi nol ogy and i s under st andabl e t o t hose who ar e t o r espond;

 “ (e) i s t o be i mpl ement ed i n ways consi st ent and compat i bl e, t o t he maxi mumext ent pr act i cabl e, wi t h t he exi st i ng

r epor t i ng and r ecor dkeepi ng pr act i ces of t hose who ar e t o r espond;

 “ (f ) i ndi cat es f or each r ecor dkeepi ng r equi r ement t he l engt h of t i me per sons ar e r equi r ed t o mai nt ai n t he r ecor ds

speci f i ed;

 “ (g) i nf or ms pot ent i al r espondent s of t he i nf or mat i on cal l ed f or under § 1320.8(b)(3); [see bel ow]

 “ (h) has been devel oped by an of f i ce t hat has pl anned and al l ocat ed r esour ces f or t he ef f i ci ent and ef f ect i ve management

and use of t he i nf or mat i on t o be col l ect ed, i ncl udi ng t he pr ocessi ng of t he i nf or mat i on i n a manner whi ch shal l enhance, 

wher e appr opr i at e, t he ut i l i t y of t he i nf or mat i on t o agenci es and t he publ i c;

 “ (I ) uses ef f ect i ve and ef f i ci ent st at i st i cal sur vey met hodol ogy appr opr i at e t o t he pur pose f or whi ch t he i nf or mat i on

i s t o be col l ect ed; and

 “ (j ) t o t he maxi mumext ent pr act i cabl e, uses appr opr i at e i nf or mat i on t echnol ogy t o r educe bur den and i mpr ove dat a

qual i t y, agency ef f i ci ency and r esponsi veness t o t he publ i c.”

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) r equi r es t hat each col l ect i on of i nf or mat i on:

 “ (3) i nf or ms and pr ovi des r easonabl e not i ce t o t he pot ent i al per sons t o whomt he col l ect i on of i nf or mat i on i s addr essed

of :

“ (I ) t he r easons t he i nf or mat i on i s pl anned t o be and/or has been used t o f ur t her t he pr oper per f or mance of t he

f unct i ons of t he agency;

“ (i i ) t he way such i nf or mat i on i s pl anned t o be and/or has been used t o f ur t her t he pr oper per f or mance of t he
Revised 1/30/2007 10

 
Revised 9/1/2006 1

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION WORKSHEET

Part II: Information Collection Detail

 

I MPORTANT: A separat e Part I I must be compl et ed f or each I nf ormat i on Col l ect i on (I C) act i vi t y associ at ed wi t h t he I CR. I f more t han one 

Part I I i s requi red, creat e a separat e Part I I document f or each I C. For more i nf ormat i on see OEI ’s I CR websi t e at 

ht t p://i nt ranet .epa.gov/i cri nt ra/. There you wi l l f i nd i nf ormat i on on compl et i ng t hi s f orm (see OEI ’s I CRAS i nst ruct i ons under t he Prepare 

an I CR t ab) and i nf ormat i on on how break your I CR i nt o I Cs (see OMB’s ROCI S I C Q&A under t he Downl oad Gui dance t ab). 

1. Ti t l e of I nf ormat i on Col l ect i on: Nat i onal Emi ssi on St andar ds f or Pr i mar y Al umi numReduct i on Pl ant s (40 CFR 63, Subpart LL)

2. I s t hi s a common f orm? 

 Yes

 No

 

(Sel ect Yes t o i dent i f y f or ms t hat

EPA i s wi l l i ng t o host f or pot ent i al

use by ot her Feder al Agenci es.)

 

3. Obl i gat i on t o respond (check one): 

 Voluntary

 Required to obtain or retain benefits

 Mandatory

Note: Only one selection may be made. If multiple 

categories apply, you must create additional ICs to 

account for the burden associated with each 

category.

4. Frequency of report i ng (onl y t o be compl et ed

i f t her e ar e r epor t i ng r equi r ement s, check al l

t hat appl y): 

 Hourly

 Daily

 Weekly

 Monthly

 Year l y

 Every Decade

 Quarterly

 Semi-Annually

 Biennially

 Once

 Occasionally 

5. CFR Citation(s) for the information collection under review (if applicable):

Title 40 Part 63 Section 843-844 

Title Part Section 

Title Part Section 

Title Part Section 
Revised 9/1/2006 2

6. Information Collection Instruments/Forms (if applicable) :

Form Name: 

Form Number: 

URL (required if electronic) : 

Is this form available electronically? Yes No If yes, can this form be submitted electronically? Yes No

Form Name: 

Form Number: 

URL (required if electronic) : 

Is this form available electronically? Yes No If yes, can this form be submitted electronically? Yes No

Form Name: 

Form Number: 

URL (required if electronic) : 

Is this form available electronically? Yes No If yes, can this form be submitted electronically? Yes No

Attach additional sheets if necessary.

Note: Instruments/Forms must be submitted/uploaded as a separate attachment.
Revised 9/1/2006 3

7. Federal Ent erpri se Archi t ect ure Busi ness Ref erence Model : 

 

Li ne of Busi ness (check one) : Subf unct i on (check one) :

 Envi r onment al Management Envi r onment al Moni t or i ng and For ecast i ng

 Envi r onment al Remedi at i on

 Pol l ut i on Pr event i on and Cont r ol

 Heal t h I l l ness Pr event i on

 I mmuni zat i on Management

 Publ i c Heal t h Moni t or i ng

 Heal t h Car e Ser vi ces

 Consumer Heal t h and Saf et y

 Nat ur al Resour ces Wat er Resour ce Management

 Conser vat i on, Mar i ne and Land Management

 Recr eat i onal Resour ce Management and Tour i sm

 Agr i cul t ur al I nnovat i on and Ser vi ces 

Not e: Most EPA I CRs wi l l be al i gned wi t h t he Envi r onment al Management FEA Li ne of Busi ness. Ot her l i kel y cat egor i es ar e al so l i st ed. For a

f ul l l i st i ng of t he FEA Busi ness Ref er ence Model cat egor i es and def i ni t i ons, see:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/documents/FY07_Ref_Model_Mapping_QuickGuide.pdf.

8. Pri vacy Act Syst em of Records (i f appl i cabl e) :

Ti t l e: 

Feder al Regi st er Ci t at i on: Vol ume Page Number Publ i cat i on Dat e 

9. Respondent s 

 

Tot al Number : 15

Smal l Ent i t y Number : 0

Per cent age of r esponses col l ect ed el ect r oni cal l y: 0

 

Af f ect ed Publ i c (check one) :

 I ndi vi dual s or Househol ds

 Pr i vat e Sect or (i f pr i vat e sect or , check al l t hat appl y)

 Busi ness or ot her f or -pr of i t

 Not -f or -pr of i t i nst i t ut i ons

 Far ms

 St at e, Local , or Tr i bal Gover nment s

 Feder al Gover nment

Not e: Onl y one sel ect i on may be made. I f mul t i pl e cat egor i es appl y, 

you must cr eat e addi t i onal I Cs t o account f or t he bur den associ at ed

wi t h each cat egor y. Sel ect i ng mul t i pl e subcat egor i es wi t hi n

“ Pr i vat e Sect or ” wi l l not af f ect t hen number of I Cs r equi r ed.

10. Frequency: How of t en on average wi l l each respondent respond t o 

t he I nf ormat i on Col l ect i on? 

 

 
Revised 9/1/2006 4

 

Number of Respondent s 15 per 

 

 

 

 

 Year 

 Hour Busi ness

hour 

 Day Busi ness

Day 

 Week Mont h 

 Decade Quar t er

 Hal f -

year

 

 

Cal cul at ed Annual Frequency: 1 

 (r esponses per r espondent per year )

Cal cul at ed Annual Number of Responses: 15 

11. Hour and Cost Burden: Ent er t he hour s and cost (per r esponse) br oken out by r epor t i ng, r ecor d keepi ng, and t hi r d par t y di scl osur e:

Hour s per Response Tot al Annual Hour Bur den Cost per Response Tot al Annual Cost Bur den

Repor t i ng 51.8 1,553 0 0

Recor dkeepi ng 1.15 207 4.60 825

Thi r d Par t y Di scl osur e 0 0 0 0

Tot al 53 1,760 4.60 825

 

I MPORTANT: “Cost per Response” and “Tot al Annual Cost Burden” shoul d i ncl ude Capi t al /St art up and O&M cost s onl y. 
Revised 9/1/2006 5

12. Annual Responses and Burden Change 

 

 

Tot al Request ed

Pr ogr amChange

due t o New

St at ut e

Pr ogr amChange

due t o Agency

Di scr et i on

Change due t o

Adj ust ment i n

Agency Est i mat e

Change due t o

Vi ol at i on of

t he PRA

Cur r ent l y

Appr oved

Annual

Responses

30 30 

Annual Hour

Bur den

1,760 1,760 

Annual Cost

Bur den

$170,568 $170,568 
1

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS: PRIMARY 

ALUMINUM REDUCTION PLANTS

PART A

1.0 Identification of the Information Collection

(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection.

“National Emission Standards for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants.” This is a new 

information collection request (ICR), and the EPA tracking number is 2447.01.

(b) Short Characterization.

This ICR covers information collection requirements in the proposed amendments to the Primary 

Aluminum NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart LL).

The potential respondents are owners or operators of any existing, new, or reconstructed primary 

aluminum reduction plant. Per the applicability section of subpart LL, the following affected sources at a 

primary aluminum reduction plant are covered: each new and existing pitch storage tank, potline, paste 

production plant and anode bake furnace that is located at a plant site that is a major source as defined in 

40 CFR 63.2. There are 15 facilities currently subject to the NESHAP, all of which will be affected by 

these proposed amendments. The proposed amendments would include new polycyclic organic matter 

(POM) emission limits for prebake potlines, new carbonyl sulfide (COS) emission limits for potlines, 

revised POM emission limits for Soderberg potlines, new POM emission limits for existing pitch storage 

tanks and new requirements for periods of startup and shutdown. These amendments are explained 

further in the section 4 of this supporting statement.

The information collection requirements associated with the proposed amendments to the 

NESHAP are listed in Attachment 1.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection

(a) Need/Authority for the Collection.

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to establish NESHAP for both major 

and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source is a 

stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year (tpy) of any single 

HAP or more than 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary source that is not a 

major source (i.e., an area source does not emit and does not have the potential to emit more than 10 tpy

of any single HAP or more than 25 tpy of any combination of HAP). There are no area sources subject to 

subpart LL. For major sources, these technology-based standards must reflect the maximum degree of 

emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality 
2

health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards. Section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review these technology-based 

standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years. In addition, section 112(f) of the CAA

requires the EPA to determine for source categories subject to certain CAA section 112(d) standards 

whether the emissions limitations provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. For MACT 

standards for HAP “classified as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen” that “do not reduce 

lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the category or 

subcategory to less than 1-in-1 million,” the EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the source 

category (or subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In 

doing so, the EPA may adopt standards equal to existing MACT standards, if the EPA determines that 

the existing standards are sufficiently protective. The EPA must also adopt more stringent standards, if 

necessary, to prevent an adverse environmental effect, but must consider cost, energy, safety and other 

relevant factors in doing so.

Certain records and reports are necessary for the Administrator to confirm the compliance status 

of sources subject to NESHAP, identify any new or reconstructed sources subject to the standards, and 

confirm that the standards are being achieved on a continuous basis. These recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7414) and set 

out in the part 63 NESHAP General Provisions. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 

operating permits (i.e., title V permits) are contained in 40 CFR 70.6 and 40 CFR 71.6. Under parts 63 

and 70 or 71, the owner or operator must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report or record.

(b) Use/Users of the Data.

The information will be used by the delegated authority (state agency, or Regional Administrator 

if there is no delegated state agency) to ensure that the standards and other requirements are being 

achieved. Based on review of the recorded information at the site and the reported information, the 

delegated permitting authority can identify facilities that may not be in compliance and decide which 

facilities, records or processes may need inspection.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations and Other Collection Criteria

(a) Nonduplication.

A computer search of the EPA’s ongoing ICRs revealed no duplication of information-gathering 

efforts.
3

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

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

(c) Consultations.

The proposed amendments were developed in consultation with individual primary aluminum 

production companies and trade associations. The non-EPA persons consulted on the information 

collection activities are identified in Table 1.

TABLE 1. PERSONS CONSULTED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

Contact Organization Telephone No.

Charles Johnson, Jr. The Aluminum Association, Inc. 703-358-2981

Mike Palazzolo Alcoa, Inc. 412-553-4832

Don Backfisch Noranda Aluminum, Inc. 573-643-2361

(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

If the relevant information was collected less frequently, the delegated permitting authority (state 

or the EPA) will not be reasonably assured that a facility is in compliance with the standards.

(e) General Guidelines.

None of the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6 are being exceeded.

(f) Confidentiality.

All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be 

safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart BConfidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 

43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

(g) Sensitive Questions.

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

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested

(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes.

Potential respondents under subpart LL are owners or operators of any existing or new facility 

engaged in Primary Aluminum Reduction operations. Primary Aluminum Reduction facilities are 

primarily classified under NAICS code 331312, Primary Aluminum Production.

There are an estimated 15 facilities that would be subject to the proposed amendments to the 

NESHAP. Fourteen of these facilities manufacture primary aluminum and one facility produces anodes 

for offsite use in other primary aluminum facilities. We are not aware of any new primary aluminum 

facility being constructed and no new sources are expected during the 3-year period of this ICR.
4

(b) Information Requested.

(i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements. Attachment 1, Information 

Requirements, summarizes the data items, including recordkeeping and reporting requirements, for the 

Primary Aluminum Reduction source category.

(ii) Respondent Activities. The respondent activities that will be required by the proposed 

amendments to the Primary Aluminum Reduction NESHAP are identified in Table 3 and are introduced 

in section 6(a).

(iii) Summary of Requirements. The EPA is including in Table 2 an estimate of the burden 

associated with performing an affirmative defense. The EPA is providing this as an illustrative example 

of the potential additional administrative burden a source may incur to assert an Affirmative Defense in 

response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in subpart LL.

This illustrative estimate is not considered a duplicate estimate of cost under the General Duty to 

Minimize Emissions clause under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), which states: “At all times, the owner and 

operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control 

practices for minimizing emissions. Determining whether such operation and maintenance procedures 

are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not 

limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of the source.”

To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an 

assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the EPA provides an administrative 

adjustment to this ICR that estimates the costs of the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense. The EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and records, including the root cause analysis, associated with a single 

incident totals approximately $3,142 and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review 

relevant data, interview plant employees and document the events surrounding a malfunction that has 

caused an exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the 

records and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden 

because these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage 

of the affirmative defense.

In this source category, it is unlikely that a control device malfunction would cause an 

exceedence of any emission limit. For reasons explained in the FRN, we have asserted that although a 
5

cost for affirmative defense is possible, we believe that malfunctions are unlikely. Thus for this source 

category, the EPA is not assigning any burden associated with affirmative defense.

TABLE 2. COST ESTIMATE FOR ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

Personnel Number of 

Personnel

Time Requirement 

(hours) Total Hours Hourly Rate ($/hr) Total

Technical Personnel 3 6 18 98.20 $ 1,768

Managerial Personnel 2 6 12 114.49 $ 1,374

Total 5 30 $ 3,142

5. The Information Collected–Agency Activities, Collection Methodology and Information 

Management

(a) Agency Activities.

The Agency activities associated with the proposed amendments to the Primary Aluminum 

Reduction NESHAP are provided in Table 4 and are introduced in section 6(c).

(b) Collection Methodology and Management.

Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in 

compliance and enforcement programs of the delegated permitting authority. The EPA is the permitting 

authority until the state or local agency is delegated authority to implement the final amendments to the 

rule. Therefore, information contained in any report submitted to the Regional Administrator will be 

entered into the Air Facility System (AFS), which is operated and maintained by the EPA’s Office of 

Compliance. AFS is the EPA’s database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance 

data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned facilities. The EPA uses the AFS for 

tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional 

offices and EPA headquarters. The EPA and its delegated authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze 

the compliance data.

(c) Small Entity Flexibility.

The Small Business Administration defines a small entity engaging in Primary Aluminum 

Reduction as a firm having no more than 1,000 employees. There are no small businesses operating 

primary aluminum reduction facilities.

(d) Collection Schedule.

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in 

Table 3 for the Primary Aluminum Reduction Source Category.
6

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

(a) Estimating Respondent Burden.

The annual burden estimates for the proposed amendments to the Primary Aluminum Reduction

NESHAP are shown in Table 3. These numbers were derived from estimates based on the EPA’s 

experience with other standards. No burden estimates are provided for new sources because no new 

facilities are expected to become affected sources during the 3-year period of this ICR.

(b) Estimating Respondent Costs.

(i) Estimating Labor Costs. Table 3 presents estimated costs for the required data collection 

activities. Labor rates and associated costs are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data.

Technical, management and clerical average hourly rates for private industry workers and were taken 

from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2009, “Table 2. 

Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group,” available at 

www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm. Wages for occupational groups are used as the basis for the 

labor rates with a total compensation of $46.76 per hour for technical, $54.52 per hour for managerial 

and $23.11 per hour for clerical. These rates represent salaries plus fringe benefits and do not include the 

cost of overhead. An overhead rate of 110 percent is used to account for these costs. The fully-burdened 

hourly wage rates used to represent respondent labor costs are: technical at $98.20, management at 

$114.49 and clerical at $48.53.

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs. Capital costs are 

estimated at $500 per facility to account for storage of records. No O&M costs are associated with the 

information collection requirements of the proposed amendments to the Primary Aluminum Reduction

NESHAP. The proposed amendments would require affected facilities to conduct new performance 

testing for POM emissions from prebake potlines, calculate COS emissions from potlines and prepare 

design reports for pitch storage tank controls.

(iii) Annualizing Capital Costs. Annualized capital costs are approximately $55/facility or $825 

for the industry.

(iv) Affirmative Defense/Root Cause Analysis/Malfunction Costs. The EPA’s estimate for a root 

cause analysis is based on general experience to calculate the time and effort required of a source to 

review relevant data, interview plant employees and reconstruct the events prior to a malfunction in 

order to determine primary and contributing causes. The level of effort also includes time to produce and 

retain the report in document form so that the source will have it available should the EPA or state 

enforcement agencies ever request to review it.
7

(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

Because the information collection requirements were developed as an incidental part of 

standards development, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection 

requirements. Because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents are 

required under the operating permits rules in 40 CFR part 70 or part 71 and the part 63 NESHAP 

General Provisions, no operational costs will be incurred by the Federal Government. Publication and 

distribution of the information are part of the Compliance Data System, with the result that no Federal 

costs can be directly attributed to the ICR. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents 

will occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of the EPA’s overall 

compliance and enforcement program, and, therefore, is not attributable to the ICR. The only costs that 

the Federal government will incur are user costs associated with the analysis of the reported information, 

as presented in Table 4.

The Agency labor rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 2010 General 

Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay. These rates can be obtained from Salary Table 2010-GS 

available on the OPM website, http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/pdf/gs_h.pdf. The government 

employee labor rates are $15.63/hour for clerical (GS-6, Step 3), $28.88 for technical (GS-12, Step 1) 

and $38.92/hr for management (GS-13, Step 5). These rates were increased by 60 percent to include 

fringe benefits and overhead. The fully-burdened wage rates used to represent Agency labor costs are:

clerical at $25.01/hour, technical at $46.21/hour and management at $62.27/hour.

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

There are an estimated 15 existing facilities that are currently subject to the Primary Aluminum 

Reduction NESHAP. No new major sources are expected during the next 3 years. Consequently, the 

average number of primary aluminum respondents during the 3-year period of this ICR is:

(1 respondent/facility) x (15 facilities) / (3 years) = 5 respondents per year.

For the proposed amendments to the Primary Aluminum Reduction NESHAP, the components of 

the total annual burden attributable to this ICR include reading the amendments to the NESHAP,

conducting the performance testing to demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission limits and 

reporting the results of those emissions tests. All other recordkeeping and reporting activities are already 

accounted for in the ICR for the NESHAP.

(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables.

(i) Respondent tally. The bottom line respondent burden hours and costs presented in Table 3 are 

calculated by adding person-hours per year down each column for technical, managerial and clerical 
8

staff, and by adding down the cost column. The average annual burden for the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the proposed amendments to subpart LL for the 15 existing facilities that are 

subject to the Primary Aluminum NESHAP is 120 person-hours, with an annual average cost of 

$11,316. Estimated capital costs to the industry for the proposed amendments are $7,500.

(ii) The Agency tally. The average annual Federal Government cost is $3,109 for 69 hours for the 

proposed amendments to subpart LL. The bottom line Agency burden hours and costs presented in Table 

4 are calculated by adding person-hours per year down each column for technical, managerial and 

clerical staff and by adding down the cost column.

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

variation is anticipated.

(f) Reasons for Change in Burden.

The EPA provides an adjustment to this ICR that estimates the costs of the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense. The 

EPA’s estimate for the required notification, reports and records, including the root cause analysis, 

associated with a single incident totals approximately $3,142 and is based on the time and effort required 

of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees and document the events surrounding a 

malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to 

produce and retain the records and reports for submission to the EPA.

For the purpose of estimating the annual burden in this category, the EPA is attributing no 

instances of affirmative defense. The costs in Table 2 are illustrative of affirmative defense, which we 

see sources having no need for, given the technical reasons explained in the FRN.

(g) Burden Statement

The average annual respondent burden for the proposed amendments to the Primary Aluminum 

Reduction NESHAP is estimated at 120 person-hours.

Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the 

purposes of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, 

and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously 

applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or 

otherwise disclose the information.
9

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates and any suggestions for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 

automated collection techniques, the EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0797 which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or 

in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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 (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1927. An electronic version of the public docket is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the public 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 above. 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 relevant Docket ID Number (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0797) in any 

correspondence.
10

PART B

This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in data collection 

associated with the proposed rule.
11

TABLE 3. ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST - AMENDMENTS TO PRIMARY ALUMINUM NESHAPa

Burden item

(A)

Person-hours

per 

occurrence

(B)

No. of 

occurrences 

per

respondent

(C)

Person-hours 

per 

respondent 

(C=A*B)

(D)

Respondents 

per year

(E)

Technical 

person-hours 

per year 

(E=C*D)

(F)

Management 

person-hours 

per year

(E*0.05)

(G)

Clerical 

person-hours 

per year 

(E*0.1)

(H)

Costa, $

1. Applications N/A

2. Surveys and Studies N/A

3. Acquisition, Installation, and Utilization of 

Technology and Systems N/A

4. Reporting Requirements

A. Read instructionsb

4 1 4 15 60 3 6 $ 6,527

B. Required activitiesc(compliance testing) 106 0.67 71 15 1065 53 107 $ 115,844

C. Create information N/A

D. Gather existing information N/A

E. Write reportd

46 0.33 15 15 225 11 23 $ 24,471

5. Recordkeeping Requirements

A. Read instructions See 4A

B. Plan activities N/A

C. Implement activities (COS calculations) 1 12 12 15 180 9 18 $ 19,580

D. Develop record system N/A

E. Time to enter information See 4C

F. Time to train personnel N/A

G. Time to adjust existing ways to comply with 

previously applicable requirements N/A

H. Time to transmit or disclose information 1 2 2 15 30 2 3 $ 3,321

I. Time for audits N/A

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (SALARY) 1,560 78 157 $ 169,743

TOTAL NUMBER OF ANNUAL RESPONSES 30

ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTSe

$ 825

TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS $ 170,568

N/A = not applicable.

a This ICR uses the following labor rates: $114.49 for managerial labor, $98.20 for technical labor, and $48.53 for clerical labor. These rates are based on the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2009.

b There are an estimated 15 existing facilities; no new facilities are expected; the average number expected to read the rule during the 3-yr compliance period is 15/3=5.

c The average facility cost for polycyclic organic matter testing was calculated at 115,844/15 = $7,723.

d

15 facilities would be required to submit a one-time design specification for pitch storage tank controls.

e

15 facilities would be required to provide record storage at $500/ facility, annualized at 7% for 15 years.
12

TABLE 4. ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST TO THE AGENCY - AMENDMENTS TO PRIMARY ALUMINUM NESHAP

Burden item

(A)

Person-hours 

per occurrence

(B)

Occurrences 

per respondent

(C)

EPA personhours/year 

(C=A*B)

(D)

Facilities 

per year

(E)

Technical personhours/year 

(E=C*D)

(F)

Management

person-hours/year 

(F=0.05*E)

(G)

Clerical personhours/year 

(G=0.1*E)

(H)

Costa, $

Report Review:

Review performance test reports and 

pitch storage tank control system designb 4 1 4 15 60 3 6 $3,109

TOTAL BURDEN AND COST $3,109

a This ICR uses the following average hourly labor rates: $62.27 for managerial (GS-13, Step 5), $46.21 (GS-12, Step 1) for technical, and $25.01 (GS-6, Step 3) for clerical. These rates 

are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 2010 General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay.

b Assumes Agency will review all of the annual reports - including the polycyclic organic matter performance test reports and the pitch storage tank control design specifications.
13

ATTACHMENT 1. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS - AMENDMENTS TO PRIMARY ALUMINUM NESHAP

Requirement Citation for existing sources Citation for new sources General Provisions citation

POM limit for prebake potlines §63.843(a)(2)(iv-vii) §63.844(a)(2)

Design specifications for pitch storage tanks §63.843(d) N/A

Calculation of monthly COS emissions §63.843(e) §63.844(e)