Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 2014 / Notices 48745 

Docket Center is 202–566–1744. For 

additional information about EPA’s 

public docket, visit: http://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Abstract: The NESHAP for Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

Area Sources (40 CFR part 63 subpart 

JJJJJJ) fulfills the requirements of section 

112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which 

requires the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate 

national emission standards for 

industrial, commercial, and institutional 

boilers. Records and reports required by 

the NESHAP for industrial, commercial, 

and institutional boilers area sources are 

necessary to enable EPA to identify 

sources subject to the standards and to 

ensure that these standards are being 

achieved. Records and reports must be 

maintained at the facility and/or 

submitted to EPA. 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. 

Form numbers: None. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Owners and operators of industrial, 

commercial, or institutional boilers. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

JJJJJJ). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

96,985 (total). 

Frequency of response: Initially, 

biennially, semiannually and annually. 

Total estimated burden: 1,656,984 

hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $284,902,526 

(per year), including $125,515,823 

annualized capital and/or operation & 

maintenance costs. 

Changes in the estimates: There is a 

decrease in the total estimated burden 

as currently identified in the OMB 

Inventory of Approved Burdens. This 

decrease is not due to any program 

changes. The change in burden and cost 

estimates occurred because the 

standards have been in effect for more 

than three years and the requirements 

are different during initial compliance 

(new facilities) as compared to the ongoing compliance, which is reflected in 

this estimates for this ICR. The previous 

ICR reflected those burdens and costs 

associated with initial activities for 

subject facilities. This includes 

purchasing monitoring equipment and 

conducting performance tests. This ICR, 

by in large, reflects the on-going burden 

and costs for existing facilities. The 

overall result is a decrease in both 

burden hours and costs. 

There is also a decrease in total 

annual capital/startup and O&M costs as 

compared to the previous ICR. This 

decrease is attributed to the fact that 

initial compliance with the standards 

occurred during the period of the 

previous ICR (e.g., monitors were 

purchased). For the next three years, 

however, fewer monitors will be 

purchased, but existing CEM monitors 

will have on-going O&M costs. 

Spencer Clark, 

Acting Director, Collection Strategies 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19459 Filed 8–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OECA–2013–0354; FRL–9915– 

26–OEI] 

Information Collection Request 

Submitted to OMB for Review and 

Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP 

for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous 

Surface Coating at Area Sources 

(Renewal) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency has submitted an information 

collection request (ICR), ‘‘NESHAP for 

Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous 

Surface Coating at Area Sources 

(Renewal)’’ (EPA ICR No. 2268.04, OMB 

Control No. 2060–0607) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.). This is a proposed 

extension of the ICR, which is currently 

approved through August 31, 2013. 

Public comments were previously 

requested via the Federal Register (78 

FR 35023) on June 11, 2013 during a 60- 

day comment period. This notice allows 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comments. A fuller description of the 

ICR is given below, including its 

estimated burden and cost to the public. 

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. 

DATES: Additional comments may be 

submitted on or before September 17, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

referencing Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OECA–2013–0354, to (1) EPA 

online using www.regulations.gov (our 

preferred method), by email to 

docket.oeca@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via 

email to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Address comments to OMB Desk Officer 

for EPA. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes profanity, threats, 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, 

and Media Programs Division, Office of 

Compliance, mail code 2227A, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

564–2970; fax number: (202) 564–0050; 

email address: yellin.patrick@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Supporting documents which explain 

in detail the information that the EPA 

will be collecting are available in the 

public docket for this ICR. The docket 

can be viewed online at 

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The telephone number 

for the Docket Center is (202) 566–1744. 

For additional information about EPA’s 

public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

Abstract: The National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous 

Surface Coating Operations at Area 

Sources are part of EPAs Integrated 

Urban Strategy to reduce cancer risk 

from area sources under section 

112(k)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act. 

Affected sources must comply with 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of the rule. The owners or 

operators of facilities with affected 

operations must read instructions to 

determine how they will be affected by 

the rule. New and existing sources must 

submit an initial notification. New 

sources are also required to submit a 

notification of compliance status, an 

annual compliance report and maintain 

records. All surface coating sources 

must keep records demonstrating that 

spray painters have completed training. 

Existing paint stripping facilities using 

more than 150 gallons per year of 

methylene chloride stripping solvent 

must complete a methylene chloride 

minimization plan and submit a 

notification of compliance status. 

Annual compliance reports are also 

required. 

Form Numbers: None. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

48746 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 2014 / Notices 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Owners or operators of paint stripping 

and miscellaneous surface coating 

operations area sources. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

HHHHHH). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

39,812 (total). 

Frequency of response: Initially, 

annually, and occasionally. 

Total estimated burden: 125,171. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $12,157,130, 

includes $116,822 annualized capital or 

operation & maintenance costs. 

Changes in the estimates: There is an 

apparent increase in the total estimated 

respondent cost burden as currently 

identified in the OMB Inventory of 

Approved Burdens. The increase is not 

due to any program changes. It 

primarily is attributed to corrections to 

the previous renewal’s burden 

calculations, which omitted technical 

and managerial labor burdens associated 

with painter certification recordkeeping 

activities conducted by commercial 

miscellaneous surface coating 

operations at area sources, as presented 

in Table 1a. This omission was 

inconsistent with the approach used 

throughout the remainder of the 

previous renewal and is inconsistent 

with the approach typically used by the 

Agency to calculate the respondent 

labor burden. Also, this renewal uses 

updated labor rates, which further 

contributed to the apparent increase in 

the respondent burden cost. This ICR 

references labor rates from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics to calculate the 

respondent cost burden. 

There is a decrease in the total O&M 

cost as compared to the previous 

renewal. This change also is not due to 

any program changes, and is attributed 

directly to corrections made to the 

previous renewal’s calculations. The 

previous renewal overestimated the 

number of initial report and notification 

that are required for new sources. This 

renewal revises the calculations which 

resulted in the observed decrease in the 

total O&M cost. 

Spencer Clark, 

Acting Director, Collection Strategies 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19458 Filed 8–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9915–33–Region–3] 

Clean Air Act Operating Permit 

Program; Petition to Object to Title V 

Permits for the Homer City and Bruce 

Mansfield Electric Generating 

Facilities; Pennsylvania 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of final action. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an 

Order, dated July 30, 2014, partially 

granting and partially denying petitions 

to object to two state operating permits 

issued by the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection (PaDEP). 

The Order responds to a September 12, 

2012 petition, and a May 15, 2013 

supplement to that petition, relating to 

EME Homer City Generation L.P.’s 

Homer City plant in Indiana County, as 

well as an October 22, 2012 petition, 

which relates to First Energy Generation 

Corporation’s Bruce Mansfield plant in 

Beaver County. The petitions were 

submitted by the Sierra Club. In the 

Bruce Mansfield petition, Sierra Club 

was joined by the Little Blue Regional 

Action Group (LBRAG), Environmental 

Integrity Project (EIP), Group Against 

Smog and Pollution (GASP), and Clean 

Air Council (CAC). This Order 

constitutes final action on those 

petitions requesting that the 

Administrator object to the issuance of 

the proposed CAA title V permit. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final Order, 

the petition, and all pertinent 

information relating thereto are on file 

at the following location: EPA, Region 

III, Air Protection Division (APD), 1650 

Arch St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view copies of the 

final Order, petition, and other 

supporting information. You may view 

the hard copies Monday through Friday, 

from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., excluding Federal 

holidays. If you wish to examine these 

documents, you should make an 

appointment at least 24 hours before the 

visiting day. The final Order is also 

available electronically at the following 

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/region07/ 

air/title5/petitiondb/petitiondb.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, Air Protection Division, 

EPA Region III, telephone (215) 814– 

2117, or by email at talley.david@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA 

affords EPA a 45-day period to review 

and object to, as appropriate, operating 

permits proposed by state permitting 

authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the 

CAA authorizes any person to petition 

the EPA Administrator within 60 days 

after the expiration of this review period 

to object to a state operating permit if 

EPA has not done so. Petitions must be 

based only on objections raised with 

reasonable specificity during the public 

comment period, unless the petitioner 

demonstrates that it was impracticable 

to raise these issues during the comment 

period or that the grounds for objection 

or other issue arose after the comment 

period. 

In the Homer City petition and Homer 

City supplemental petition (numbered 

III–2012–06 and III–2013–03 

respectively), the petitioner sought the 

EPA objection on the following issues: 

(1) The proposed permit fails to include 

the general prohibition against air 

pollution found in Pennsylvania’s State 

Implementation Plan (PA SIP); (2) the 

proposed permit fails to include 

emission limits and averaging periods 

sufficient to prevent the Homer City 

plant from causing impermissible air 

pollution in the form of harmful 

concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in 

violation of the state adopted, federallyenforceable acid rain provisions and the 

PA SIP; (3) the proposed permit fails to 

require sufficient emissions limits and 

monitoring requirements to ensure 

compliance with particulate matter (PM) 

standards; (4) the proposed permit 

impermissibly claims to apply a permit 

shield to unidentified future projects; 

and (5) various miscellaneous claims 

not separately identified in the petition. 

The Homer City supplemental petition 

identifies the following bases on which 

the EPA should object: (1) 

Pennsylvania’s general prohibition on 

harmful air pollution is an applicable 

requirement with which the permit 

must assure compliance; and (2) 

Pennsylvania’s acid rain regulations are 

federally-enforceable applicable 

requirements with which the permit 

must assure compliance. The PaDEP 

issued the final Homer City operating 

permit (No. 32–00055) on November 16, 

2012. 

In the Mansfield petition (numbered 

III–2012–07), the petitioners sought the 

EPA objection on the following issues: 

(1) The proposed permit fails to include 

numerical emission limits and 

monitoring sufficient to prevent the 

facility from causing impermissible air 

pollution in the form of harmful 

concentrations of SO2 as well as 

violations of an applicable acid rain 

provision; (2) the proposed permit fails 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES