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

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.


### 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 (SO 2) inviolation 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 SO 2 as well as violations of an applicable acid rain provision; (2) the proposed permit fails