UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 April 13, 2006 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Qualitative impact assessment of extensions to restricted entry intervals for phosmet in grapes ( DP # 296575)

FROM: Monisha Kaul, Biologist Nikhil Mallampalli, Biologist Biological Analysis Branch TJ Wyatt, Agricultural Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Timothy Kiely, Acting Chief Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

TO: Diane Isbell, Chemical Review Manager ( 7509C) Margaret Rice, Chief Special Review and Reregistration Division Product Review Panel Date: April 7, 2006 SUMMARY EPA is considering mitigation strategies to address concerns for workers exposed to phosmet following applications to grapes. This is a preliminary, qualitative assessment of the impact of extending the restricted entry interval ( REI). 2 Growers would likely stop using phosmet if the REI is greater than 14 days ( Cook and Kiely, 2001). A REI longer than 14 days would likely interfere with manual labor activities such as leaf pulling and hand harvesting. Were growers not to use phosmet, increased production costs from more expensive chemicals would be expected in California and the Pacific Northwest, although yield and quality loss is not expected. In the Northeast and South, decreased yield as well as increased production costs and would be expected because growers rely more heavily on phosmet than in other regions.

BACKGROUND Based on post application worker risk assessments, EPA is considering mitigation strategies, including extending the restricted entry interval ( REI) for phosmet use on grapes. The risk assessment indicates that a REI of 29 days would be necessary to reduce risks to worker below the Agency's level of concern. The purpose of this assessment is to provide a preliminary, qualitative assessment of the impact of extending the REI on grape producers and the grape industry.

Grapes Grapes are produced in nearly every state of the U. S. The most recent statistics indicate that about 940,000 acres of grapes are grown in the U. S. ( USDA NASS, 2006). Over 85% of the total acreage is in California. Washington and New York are the other main producers. Total grape production is about 6.7 million tons annually with a total value of about $ 2.9 billion. Producer prices average around $ 430/ ton, but vary considerably by state and by end use. Table 1 provides acreage, production and value figures as reported by USDA.

Table 1. U. S. grape acreage, production and value, 2001   2005 average. Region Bearing Acres Production ( 1000 tons) Yield ( ton/ acre) Value ($ 1000) Price ($/ ton) California 809,400 6,057.8 7.4 2,623,964 435 Pacific Northwest 1 61,720 351.8 5.7 169,463 485 Northeast 2 58,380 311.9 5.3 76,460 245 South 3 8,900 23.9 2.7 22,596 945 U. S. 940,260 6,752.7 7.2 2,884,764 425 Source: Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts Summary ( USDA NASS, various years). U. S. totals do not equal the sum of the columns because some states are not included in the table. 1 Oregon and Washington. 2 Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. 3 Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.

Grapes may be sold fresh or processed into juice, wine or raisins. Typically, certain varieties are targeted into specific uses, although there is some flexibility. Table 2 provides a summary of utilization, by region. Wine is produced in all parts of the U. S. In contrast, raisins are almost completely produced in California. Nationally, juice varieties make up less than 10% of 3 production, but they are the dominant types in the Pacific Northwest and the Northeast. California produces little or no juice varieties.

Table 2. Grape utilization, amount ( tons) and percent of total, 2001   2005 average. Region Fresh (% of total) Juice (% of total) Wine (% of total) Raisin (% of total) Total California 885,600 ( 14.6%) 3,618,000 ( 59.7%) 1,559,200 ( 25.7%) 6,057,800 Pacific Northwest 1 219,400 ( 62.4%) 131,000 ( 37.2%) 351,680 Northeast 2 3,560 ( 1.1%) 234,820 ( 75.3%) 57,040 ( 18.3%) 311,940 South 3 2,080 ( 8.7%) 18,680 ( 78.3%) 23,870 U. S. 896,420 ( 13.3%) 455,690 ( 6.7%) 3,806,960 ( 56.4%) 1,560,570 ( 23.1%) 6,752,670 Source: Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts Summary ( USDA NASS, various years). Totals may equal the sum of columns because of rounding or because minor uses are not reported. U. S. totals do not equal the sum of the columns because some states are not included in the table. 1 Oregon and Washington. 2 Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. 3 Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.

Recent Use of Phosmet According to data from the California Pesticide Use Reports ( CDFA, various years), phosmet use on grapes declined between 1999 and 2004, from less than two percent crop area treated to less than one percent. Reports distinguish between wine grapes and other grapes ( table and raisin), but there is little difference. However, if phosmet is applied solely to table grapes, the percentage of acreage currently treated is about 1.6%, down from around 8% in 1999. Total amount of phosmet applied has fallen from about 26,000 lb in 1999 to about 5,700 lb in 2004, as the number of acres treated declined. Only about 10% of the acreage is treated more than once. The application rate has remained fairly constant at about 1.5 lb/ acre per year.

Data from other states are sparse. The National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA ( various years), has published very limited information. It appears that growers in the Northeast rely relatively more heavily on phosmet than do California producers. Data suggest that 15 20% of the acreage is treated, although recent data are particularly sparse. EPA proprietary data also indicate about 20% of crop area treated in the Northeast. EPA proprietary data indicate that less than 10% on average of crop area is treated in the Pacific Northwest and seems to be declining in recent years. Like NASS statistics, these figures depend on small sample sizes and should be viewed with caution.

In the Northeast, the average application rate is about 1.2 lb phosmet per acre. Growers sometimes make multiple applications; on average, growers make 1.4 applications per year ( USDA NASS, various years). Data are not available for the Pacific Northwest. 4 MAXIMUM FEASIBLE REI The 2001 BEAD assessment concluded that growers would likely stop using phosmet if the REI is greater than 14 days in both California and the Northeast ( Cook and Kiely, 2001). In California, a longer REI would interfere with hand harvesting activities. California wine grapes can be either hand or mechanically harvested, while table grapes are generally hand harvested. Phosmet is typically applied around mid July through September while hand harvesting begins in mid August and runs through October. Secondary pests may account for some additional phosmet applications, either at the delayed dormant stage or during the summer, which overlap many worker activities that take place at those times.

In the Northeast, phosmet may be applied several times during the season for grape berry moth control. After the early season application, worker activities such as cluster thinning, shoot thinning, and shoot positioning are required within two to three weeks ( Cook and Kiely, 2001). The last application of the season targets the third generation of the grape berry moth and requires an insecticide with a short REI as workers must complete manual labor tasks such as leaf pulling activities. Such manual labor tasks are important for maintaining crop quality. Phosmet is used in this situation because of its short REI; a REI longer than 14 days may interfere with hand labor activities ( Colwell and Kiely, 2001). This situation may also apply to growers in the South, primarily because the third generation grape berry moth is more common there than in the North.

According to the Pest Management Strategic Plan for Washington State Wine Grape Production ( 2004), if phosmet is used, it will be pre bloom in the spring or summer, which may coincide with leaf pulling activities, which occur two to three weeks post bloom, similar to the early applications in the Northeast.

IMPACTS OF EXTENDING REI BEYOND MAXIMUM FEASIBLE LENGTH Extending the REI beyond the current 14 days would result in growers turning to one of several available alternatives for control of pests targeted by phosmet.

The primary target pests in California are the omnivorous leafroller and the Western grape leaf skeletonizer. Secondary pests controlled by phosmet are the grape mealybug and vine mealybug. In the Pacific Northwest, the primary target pests are the grape mealybug and cutworms.

In the Northeast, the primary target pest is the grape berry moth. The most common secondary pest for which phosmet is used is the Japanese beetle.

Alternatives The omnivorous leafroller and Western grape leaf skeletonizer are usually controlled with a mix of Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt) and cryolite. Spinosad and methoxyfenozide were registered after the 2001 BEAD assessment was conducted for phosmet. Although efficacy data is sparse, these two chemicals appear to be efficacious ( A Pest Management Strategic Plan for Winegrapes in California, 2004). 5 Alternatives for mealybugs include chlorpyrifos and imidacloprid. Chlorpyrifos has been reported to provide excellent control of mealybugs while imidacloprid provides good control ( A Pest Management Strategic Plan for Winegrapes in California, 2004).

Table 3 indicates the chemicals that may be efficacious against the various California pests and their typical cost per acre. However, these alternatives may not be as efficacious as phosmet and could require more than one application to achieve the same level of control. If the same control cannot be achieved, growers may experience yield and/ or quality losses.

Table 3. Available alternatives for phosmet target pests in California Alternative Omnivorous leafroller Western grape leaf skeletonizer Mealybugs Cost 1 $/ acre phosmet x x x 9 14 Bacillus thuringiensis x x 7 10 cryolite x x 11 13 carbaryl x x x 10 methomyl x x x 15 22 chlorpyrifos x 18 19 imidacloprid x 45 65 fenpropathrin x 10 12 methoxyfenozide x 16 19 spinosad x x 22 acetamiprid 2 x pheromone mating disruption 3 x clay 2 x x An " x" indicates the chemicals that may be efficacious according to Cook and Kiely ( 2001) and A Pest Management Strategic Plan for Winegrapes in California ( 2004). 1 EPA proprietary data, based on treatment costs for target pests, 2001 2004 average. 2 Insufficient usage from which to calculate cost. 3 EPA data do not include the cost of pheromones.

Table 4 indicates the chemicals that may be efficacious against the Northeast pests and their typical cost per acre. These alternatives may not be as efficacious as phosmet and could require more than one application to achieve the same level of control. If the same control cannot be achieved, growers may experience yield and/ or quality losses. 6 Table 4. Available alternatives for phosmet target pests in the Northeast Alternative Grape berry moth Japanese beetle Cost 1 $/ acre phosmet x x 9 13 Bacillus thuringiensis 2 x carbaryl x x 10 11 methomyl x 8 16 fenpropathrin x x 10 11 methoxyfenozide 2 x pheromone mating disruption 3 x clay 2 x An " x" indicates the chemicals that may be efficacious according to Cook and Kiely ( 2001) and Crop Profile for Lubrusca ( Juice) Grapes in Michigan ( 2004). 1 EPA proprietary data. 2 EPA data indicate insufficient usage from which to calculate cost. 3 EPA data do not include the cost of pheromones.

The grape berry moth can be controlled with fenpropathrin, carbaryl, and methomyl. The Japanese beetle can be effectively controlled with fenpropathrin and carbaryl. All three chemicals have IPM concerns. Fenpropathrin should not be applied more than once per year because of reported resistance and is more critical for grape berry moth control ( Cook and Kiely, 2001). Both carbaryl and methomyl are highly toxic to mite predators ( Crop Profile for Lubrusca ( Juice) Grapes in Michigan, 2004).

According to the Pest Management Strategic Plan for Washington State Wine Grape Production ( 2004), the use of broadcast phosmet applications is discouraged because phosmet is disruptive to beneficials or non targets. Additionally, barrier treatments such as fenpropathrin may be more efficacious and less costly than broadcast sprays, especially for cutworm control.

In recent years, broad spectrum insecticides, such as organophosphates, are being replaced by insecticides with a narrower activity spectrum. The older chemicals not only controlled the target pest( s), but also, most other exposed insects. A consequence of the shift to newer chemistries is that crop damage from insects that until recently were considered minor pests appears to be increasing. However concomitantly, the shift to narrower spectrum chemicals may result in less mortality for beneficial species, including natural enemies, which should in turn increase natural mortality for some insect pests, ultimately leading to less pesticide use. To the extent that these pest dynamics continue to evolve and remain rather difficult to predict, this analysis examines only potential short term ( two to three years) impacts of replacing phosmet with insecticides with a narrow activity spectrum.

Impacts Because a REI for phosmet beyond 14 days would interfere with key crop production and pest management practices, growers would likely stop using it altogether and turn to one or more of several available alternatives. 7 Given the availability of new alternatives and based on recent low usage of phosmet in California, BEAD tentatively concludes that yield or quality losses are unlikely if phosmet could not be used. It is likely that production costs will increase because alternatives are more costly, would have to be applied more often, or would result in applications of additional pesticides to control secondary pests. Given the low usage of phosmet in California, these impacts may be minor and would not affect a large number of growers. Similarly, declining phosmet usage and more efficacious alternatives suggested by specialists indicate that significant yield or quality impacts are unlikely in the Pacific Northwest ( Pest Management Strategic Plan for Washington State Wine Grape Production, 2004).

Growers in the Northeast and South are more likely to experience yield and quality losses without phosmet than California producers because they rely more heavily on phosmet. A longer REI may prevent necessary hand labor activities, which would compromise fruit quality. Again, production costs will likely increase because alternatives are more costly, would have to be applied more often, or would result in applications of additional pesticides to control secondary pests.

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION As part of the request for comments, BEAD would welcome data that could be used to refine this assessment, if necessary. Useful information would include:

  usage information for states other than California;   particular regional or pest problems leading to phosmet use;   comparative product performance data, including yield and quality impacts;   relative product costs;   non chemical alternatives, efficacy and cost; and   restrictions or other constraints on the use of alternatives.

REFERENCES CDFA ( California Dept. of Food and Agriculture). various years. Usage of Agricultural Pesticides in California: Pesticide Usage Report. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, at http:// www. ipm. ucdavis. edu/ PUSE/ puse1. html .

Cook, C. and T. Kiely. 2001. Initial grape benefits assessment for azinphos methyl and phosmet. Unpublished EPA report.

Crop Profiles for Grapes ( Wine) in California, 2002. Web address: http:// www. ipmcenters. org/ cropprofiles/ docs/ cagrapes wine. html Crop Profile for Lubrusca ( Juice) Grapes in Michigan, 2004. Web address: http:// www. ipmcenters. org/ cropprofiles/ docs/ MIlabruscagrapes. html A Pest Management Strategic Plan for Winegrapes in California, 2004. Web address: 8 http:// www. ipmcenters. org/ pmsp/ pdf/ cawinegrapes. pdf A Pest Management Strategic Plan for Washington State Wine Grape Production, 2004. Web address: http:// www. ipmcenters. org/ pmsp/ pdf/ WAWineGrapePMSP. pdf USDA NASS. 2006. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, 2005 Preliminary Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, January, at http:// usda. mannlib. cornell. edu/ reports/ nassr/ fruit/ pnf bb/ ncit0106. pdf.

USDA NASS. various years. Agricultural Chemical Usage, Fruit Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, at http:// usda. mannlib. cornell. edu/ reports/ nassr/ other/ pcu bb/# fruits USDA NASS. various years. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, July, at http:// usda. mannlib. cornell. edu/ reports/ nassr/ fruit/ pnf bb/


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 45520]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18040]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-265-001.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 134 Interim Balancing Area
Services--Settlement Agmt--VEA to be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130719-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1996-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Revisions to Attachment T Updating City Utilities of
Springfield, MO to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130719-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1997-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Letter Agreement Between LADWP and SCE for Fringe
Additional Facilities to be effective 7/16/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130719-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA
210(m)(3) filings:

    Docket Numbers: QM13-2-001.
    Applicants: PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.
    Description: Amendment to May 17, 2013 Application to Terminate
Purchase Obligation of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.
    Filed Date: 7/19/13.
    Accession Number: 20130719-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 19, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18040 Filed 7-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


TO: Tom Cackette Mike Carter Rich Gezelle Stephan Lemieux Glenn Passavant Matt Spears Rich Wilcox CC: Jed R. Mandel FROM: Timothy A. French DATE: November 29, 2004 RE: Draft Agenda for the December 1, 2004 In Use Testing Technical Meeting Attached is the draft agenda for the December 1, 2004 In Use Testing Technical meeting scheduled at the Westin Detroit Metropolitan Airport Hotel. I look forward to seeing everyone on Wesdnesday at the meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 2 DRAFT AGENDA EMA/ EPA Meeting Manufacturer In Use Testing Detroit Metro Westin Hotel December 1, 2004 1. Draft in use database and electronic reporting format 2. Guidance documents ( introductory discussion) 3. CBI issues 4. Other issues 5. Next Steps 3 AGENDA ( January 27, 2005)

I. Introductions II. Pending IMO Related Issues A. Preparation For February 2005 IMO DE Meeting 1. Membership and Anticipated Roles of U. S. Delegation 2. EMA's Concerns Regarding IACS Interpretation Document 3. Addressing Family Certification Concerns 4. Coordination with Other Industry Stakeholders 5. Ensuring Inclusion in Drafting Group Discussions B. Planning For July 2005 IMO MEPC53 Meeting 1. Potential Discussion Topics

Amendments to NOx Technical Code to facilitate family certification ( and avoid multiple EIAPPs)

Development of " Tier 2" regulations 2. Submission of Written Comments ( March 2005?) 3. Objectives of U. S. Delegation ( EPA) at Meeting C. Effective Date of Annex VI ( May 19, 2005)

1. Status of U. S. Ratification 2. Conversion of Voluntary Certificates into EIAPP Certificates

EPA process D. Next Steps III. EMA's Marine Useful Life Proposal ( June 25, 2004)

A. EPA Response B. Next Steps

Guidance document

Regulatory changes 4 IV. Status of ANPRM For Marine and Locomotive Engines A. Response To EMA's Comments ( August 30, 2004)

Separate rulemakings

Timing/ stringency of standards B. Timetable For Rulemaking

Consultative meetings with EMA C. Next Steps 5 Measurement Accuracy Margin for the Heavy Duty In Use Testing Final Rule EPA Staff Working Document Background: The settlement outline states that new measurement accuracy margins for the heavy duty in use testing ( HDIUT) program will be jointly determined by EPA, CARB, and the engine manufacturers. The purpose of these margins is to account for the uncertainty associated with portable emissions sampling systems incremental to laboratory performance. EPA maintains that the Final Rule needs to include " hard wired" accuracy margins for all pollutants. These are at a minimum needed for the " pilot programs." EPA has indicated that it would provide " liberal" values for these interim accuracy margins and manufacturers have indicated their agreement with these margins. 1 Further, in meetings on this subject, manufacturers have indicated that more data is needed to establish the accuracy margins for the 2007 fully enforceable program for gaseous emissions and a 2008 fully enforceable program for particulate matter ( PM). EPA also believes that more data would be helpful in determining the final accuracy margins and is willing to engage in a program to develop that information. This paper identifies how the data driven accuracy margins can be developed and how they would be implemented by a direct final rulemaking. It also describes the consequences of failing to complete the program to define data driven accuracy margins in time to start either of the enforceable programs.

Program Development: EPA will develop the basic scope and objectives of the program to derive the data driven margins with the participation of the engine manufacturers. It would be highly desirable for manufacturers to be objectively involved in the design of the program given the scope and importance of the project. ( EPA expects that each manufacturer would have one representative to assist in developing the program. CARB may also choose to participate [ CARB has committed to propose an in use testing program in substantial conformance with EPA's. The nature of CARB's participation needs to be conclusively established before any MOU is signed.]). The programmatic objectives, approach, and the relative roles of EPA and the engine manufacturers and other points of agreement necessary for a successful program would be reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) or similar document.

More specifically, the MOU would address the development of both gaseous and PM accuracy margins. For gaseous emissions, the document would explicitly detail the objectives, testing, data analysis, and commitments from each party including cost sharing, payments in kind, or other possible contributions. 2 The MOU would contain a hard funding limit, i. e., not to exceed value, for the gaseous emissions test program. For PM, the document would specify that the parties agree to develop a detailed testing and data analysis plan ( such as is now underway for the gaseous pollutants) within XX months of signing the MOU. The document would also explicitly detail for PM as many of the program objectives, scope, and commitments from each party as possible, including cost sharing, payments in kind, or other possible contributions. Furthermore, the MOU would specify a PM test plan similar in approach and level of testing as that used to develop the gaseous emission accuracy margins. The PM portion of the MOU would also contain a hard funding limit, i. e., not to exceed value, for the test program. Finally, the document would contain an agreement that the parties would not contest the data driven gaseous and PM results so long as they are derived from the agreed upon test program and the application of the agreed upon analytical methods.

Objective, Approach, and Accommodations: The margins will compensate for the difference between in use emission measurement accuracy and laboratory emission measurement accuracy. Individual margins will be established for NOx, NMHC, CO, and PM. These marginsThis program is not intended to determine potential accuracy allowances for laboratory testing at the levels of the 2007/ 2010 emission standards. The margins determined by this program will be established by a rigorous in field and laboratory test program that assesses, at a minimum, lab to PEMS emission differences and accounts for in use environmental effects on PEMS units. The overall scope, experimental design, and analytical methodology for determining each accuracy margin would be agreed upon well in advance of initiating the test program. The test programs for gaseous and PM pollutants would 1 The additive interim accuracy margins ( g/ bhp hr) are as follows: NMHC = 0.17; NOx = 0.5; CO = 0.60; and PM = 0.10. 2 As currently envisioned for the gaseous test program, the primary contribution by all parties will be money. The total dollar cost would be split equally ( pro rata) between industry and government. Manufacturers will also contribute test engines, which will be valued as part of their monetary contribution. 6 ideally be integrated and sequenced into the overall test plan to provide final results in time for the fully enforceable programs described above. Nonetheless, in no case should work on developing the gaseous accuracy margins be delayed while a work plan for the PM test program is being completed. It is imperative that the test program for gaseous emissions is initiated and completed quickly to preventavoid delaying the enforceable program that begins in 2007.

All testing and subsequent data analysis will be overseen by EPA and coordinated with the engine manufacturers. It is anticipated that much of the testing and data analysis will be performed under contract by an agreed upon third party or parties. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the experimental designs will be submitted to a statistician to ensure that the information generated is sufficient and appropriate for developing the accuracy margins, and to establish an algorithm for calculating the margins. This overall approach will provide assurances that the experimental designs are acceptable to all participants and is intended to prevent multiple interpretations of the datadriven results so that the margins can be implemented by direct final rulemaking. It will also help ensure that the program will be completed on schedule and budget. ( Although EPA intends to implement data driven accuracy margins by direct final rule, the Agency cannot guarantee that the test program results would end up in a final rule if significant adverse comments are received.)

Finally, EPA understands that participation by manufacturers in the test programs will result in some burden to those companies, but will produce useful information. Therefore, if manufacturers agree to participate in the test programs, EPA believes it would be appropriate to reduce the manufacturers' testing burden under the original pilot program ( 2005 2006 for gaseous and 2006 2007 for PM) to five vehicles per designated engine family.

Schedule: In order to provide adequate time to promulgate the data driven accuracy margins, the test programs will generally need to conform to the following schedule. First, the MOU containing the experimental design, analytical methods, and resource commitments for determining the accuracy margins should be signed by senior management of all parties no later than XX, 2005. Second, the subsequent detailed test and data analysis plan for PM should be signed by senior management of all parties no later than XX, 2005. Third, the test programs should be completed and final accuracy margins available by September 1,30, 2006 for the gaseous emissions and by September 1,30, 2007 for PM.

Regulatory Provision: If it is determined that the test programs as described above are an appropriate mechanism for determining final accuracy margins, the basic programmatic objectives and approach, and the relative roles of the EPA and the engine manufacturers would be reflected in the HDIUT final rule. The key provisions of the MOU, such as the contributions and deliverables for each party, would be referenced and to the degree possible contained in the preamble of the rule. Certain key provisions would also be reflected in the regulatory language as a means to provide certainty to all parties. These provisions would include items such as the pilot program provisions and, as appropriate, the consequences of failing to complete the accuracy margin test programs as specified below. The accuracy margin algorithm may also be included in the regulatory text.

The MOU will address a test program that is designed to provide the data ( and associated data analysis) needed to derive the final data driven accuracy margins by September 30, 2006 for gaseous emissions and September 30, 2007 for PM. 3 The MOU will specify key interim deliverable milestones. It will also specify that the final data driven accuracy margins will be documented in a final report from the contractor as soon as practicable, but in no case later December 1, 2006 for gaseous and December 1, 2007 for PM. [ deleted sentence; awkward; repetitive] The data driven accuracy margins will be proposed by EPA in a direct final rule as soon as possible after the values are identified. The MOU will acknowledge that publishing and finalizing the direct final rule with the data driven margins would fulfill EPA's obligation under the settlement agreement.

If a failure to deliver the final accuracy values by the December 1 date is the fault of the manufacturers, the respective enforceable program goes into effect using the previously agreed upon interim accuracy margins. A manufacturers' failure may be demonstrated by missing one or more of the critical milestones as follows:

3 Laboratory and environmental testing will be performed by a third party contractor. 7  Torque/ BSFC v. speed/ load and AECD maps delivered to contractor at time of contract signature  Contracts funded and signed within 60 days after MOU signature  Engines delivered to contractor within 90 days after MOU signature [ these dates are subject to further due diligence to assess their reasonableness]

If manufacturers fail to perform as agreed upon in the MOU and the detailed test plan for PM, and that failure would otherwise delay the planned start an enforceable program, the respective enforceable program would begin as originally scheduled using provisional accuracy margins. The provisional accuracy margins will be the lesser of the interim margins as previously described, or new accuracy margins developed by EPA based on the test data that are available as of the originally scheduled end of the test program. These provisional accuracy margins will remain in effect until the relevant final data driven margins are established. A failure by any individual manufacturer that leads to missing one or more of the critical milestones described above would be regarded as a failure by all manufacturers.

If EPA fails to perform as agreed upon in the MOU and the detailed test plan for PM, and that failure would otherwise delay the originally planned completion date of the test program, the 18 month period for testing and reporting under the respective enforceable program could be delayed by up to three months. The actual delay would be equal to the time needed to complete the test program, i. e., a one to one correspondence. The enforceable program would use the data driven accuracy margins derived from the results of the test program. To relieve any added testing burden that may be caused by overlapping the initial test period onto that for the subsequent model year, an appropriate reduction in the number of engine families designated for testing for the first model year would be provided. For example, if the test program was delayed for three months, the number of engine families tested in the intervening 18 months would be reduced about 20 percent ( 3 ÷ 18 = 17%). In no case, however, would the number of engine families designated for testing by any manufacturers be less than one. If the interim accuracy margins go into effect as a result of a manufacturers' failure, EPA may pursue a separate rulemaking to establish different accuracy margins for any subsequent year after the enforceable program begins.

If EPA's failure to perform would otherwise delay the test program more than three months, the respective enforceable program would go into abeyance and the pilot program would continue as originally conceived for the first year, i. e., Phase 1 and Phase 2, a failure to obtain final documentation from the contractor of the final accuracy values by the December 1 date is the fault of EPA or a party other than the manufacturers, and the delay is less than a total of 3 months, the enforceable program will be delayed by the same amount of time it takes to complete and finalize the final contractor report, i. e., a one to one correspondence. 4 If the final documentation of the final values is delayed beyond 3 months, the Phase 1 and 2 pilot programs will be implemented for that year using the interim accuracy margins until such time as the relevant data driven margins are established and the respective enforceable program begun. If necessary, this cycle will be repeated until the final accuracy margins are identified and documented in a final report.

If the enforceable program is delayed, however, and subject to the negotiated annual cap on the designation of engine families for in use testing, the applicable 2007 and subsequent model year engines may be selected and subject to enforcement testing ( for gaseous as well as PM emissions) once the accuracy margins are established and the enforcement program begins.

If the data driven accuracy margins are delayed due to problems that are not the fault of EPA or the engine manufacturers, e. g., unforeseen, but manageable technical issues or delays by other involved parties, the consequences of such a failure would be the same as described above for a failure on EPA's part.

If fundamental, irresolvable technical problems are identified relative to the PM portable emission measurement systems, the PM pilot program or enforceable program goes into abeyance until such time as suitable emission measurement devices are identified or the problems otherwise resolved. If the enforceable program is delayed, however, and subject to the negotiated annual cap on the designation of engine families for in use testing; the 4 The anticipated June 30 date for designating engine families, which initiates the 18 month testing/ reporting period, would be delayed. 8 applicable 2007 and subsequent model year engines may be selected and subject to enforcement testing ( for gaseous as well as PM emissions) once the accuracy margins are established and the enforcement program begins.

EPA anticipates that CARB will agree to the test programs and provisions described above.

EMADOCS: 6567.16567.2 EMA European Office, C. P. 65, CH 1231 Conches, Switzerland Telephone : + 41 22 784 3357 Facsimile + 41 22 784 3349 Two North LaSalle Street Suite 2200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Tel: 312/ 827 8700 Fax: 312/ 827 8737 www. enginemanufacturers. org Document comparison done by DeltaView on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11: 43: 51 AM Input:

Document 1 PowerDocs:// EMADOCS/ 6567/ 1 Document 2 PowerDocs:// EMADOCS/ 6567/ 2 Rendering set Standard no color Legend:

Insertion Deletion Moved from Moved to Style change Format change Moved deletion Inserted cell Deleted cell Moved cell Split/ Merged cell Padding cell Statistics:

Count Insertions 25 Deletions 13 Moved from 0 Moved to 0 Style change 0 Format changed 0 Total changes 38 10 TO: Glenn Passavant, U. S. EPA CC: Heavy Duty On Highway Committee Mobile Off Highway Committee Calibration Standards Task Force Jed R. Mandel FROM: Timothy A. French DATE: April 12, 2005 RE: Revised Draft Memorandum of Agreement Attached please find a black lined version of the proposed Memorandum of Agreement reflecting EMA's revisions and edits. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this document. 11 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Program to Develop Emission Measurement Accuracy Margins for Heavy Duty In Use Testing EPA Staff Working Document V5 1. Parties: The Engine Manufacturers Association ( EMA), representing its member companies ( Caterpillar Tractor Company, Cummins Engine Company, Daimler Chrysler, International, Isuzu, John Deere, and Mack/ Volvo) that manufacture heavy duty on highway (" HDOH") diesel fueled engines, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and the California Air Resources Board ( CARB) ( collectively " the Signatories" or " the parties") recognize the challenge of the upcoming emission standards for heavy duty diesel engines and the importance of meeting thesethose standards in use, if the expected air quality benefits of the new requirements are to be realized. EPA has proposed and will soon finalize heavy duty in use testing ( HDIUT) regulations aimed at assessing in use compliance with the emission standards. Following a pilot testing program, full program testing would begin in 2007 for gaseous emissions and 2008 for particulate matter ( PM) emissions. This program would require the use of portable emission measurement systems ( PEMS) on heavy duty diesel vehicles in actual operation. This memorandum of agreement describes the joint understandings and agreements of the signatoriesSignatories with regard to developing data driven emission measurement accuracy margins for gaseous and PM emissions to be applied to the results of PEMS in  use in field testing under the forthcoming HDIUT regulations.

2. Background: In a Settlement Agreement dated June 3, 2003, EPA and EMA agreed to an " Outline of a Regulatory Proposal for a Manufacturer Run In Use Heavy Duty Vehicle NTE Testing Program." The outline states that emission measurement accuracy margins for the HDIUT program will be jointly determined by EPA, CARB, and the engine manufacturers. The purpose of these additive type margins is to account for the emissions measurement variability associated with PEMS units in the field, incremental to that experienced in laboratory testing. In meetings on this subject, manufacturers have stated their belief that more data is needed to establish the HDIUT accuracy margins for the 2007 fully enforceable program ( FEP) for gaseous emissions ( scheduled to commence in 2007) and the 2008 FEP for PM ( scheduled to commence in 2008). EPA and CARB agree that more data would be helpful in determining thesethose accuracy margins.

3. Purpose: This agreement describes how data driven accuracy margins for gaseous and PM emissions will be developed, the roles and responsibilities of the parties to this agreement, how the final accuracy margins will be incorporated into the governing HDIUT regulations, and the consequences of failing to complete the program to develop data driven accuracy margins in time to start either portion ( gaseous emissions or PM emissions) of the FEPsFEP.

4. Program for Gaseous Emission Margins:

a. Scope: Working together with CARB and the engine manufacturers, EPA has prepared a document ( attached) which serveswill serve as the test plan for developing data  driven accuracy margins for gaseous emissions. ItThe test plan describes the basic scope and objectives of this research, development, and demonstration ( RDD) program and defines specific analyses, laboratory experiments, and field work which need to be accomplished to develop the data  driven accuracy margins. For gaseous emissions, individual margins will be established for NOx, NMHC, and CO. The test plan contains the following basic elements:

  3rd Third party laboratory experiments to assess emissions measurement variability of PEMS units incremental to that experienced in the laboratory. Results will be used to " calibrate" a computer model that will calculate the measurement allowances.   3rd Third party laboratory experiments to assess the effects of environmental parameters on the measurement accuracy capability of the PEMS units and their ability to operate correctly and consistently in use over a normal sampling time. Results will be used to " calibrate" a computer model that will calculate the measurement allowances. 12   3rd Third party on  vehicle/ trailer comparison of portable emission measurement versus field laboratory emission measurement. Results will be used to validate the computer model used to calculate the measurement allowances.   ManufacturerThird party tests and manufacturer voluntary submissions of the effects of NTE events with activated non deficiency AECDs and other factors on the ability to estimate torque/ bsfc values from ECM parameters using prescribed mapping procedures. EPA and CARB would consider information for an additional allowance if error due to AECDs is consistent across manufacturers. If errors are infrequent, large, or there is a consistent bias in errors, EPA and CARB will expect those manufacturers to account for these errors by creating more sophisticated algorithms for calculating torque/ BSFC from ECM parameters., in consultation with HDOH engine manufacturers, will utilize this information, if reasonably common among manufacturers, to establish a margin component accounting for the uncertainty in the torque/ bsfe values used in the NTE brake specific emission calculations.   b. Costs: The 2007 gaseous emission test programportion of the RDD program to develop data driven accuracy margins for gaseous emissions is not intended to cost more than $ 1.5 million. EPA's participation in this agreement is subject to the availability of appropriated funds. In addition to the resources EPA commits to this effort, CARB and the engine manufacturing industry intend to donatecontribute additional resources to the Agency under Section 104( b)( 4) of the Clean Air Act. The industry intends that its donation be no more than $ 750,000. Theseit will contribute a 50% cost share up to $ 750,000, subject to EPA/ CARB ensuring the funding of the remainder of the RDD program. Those contributions may be in the form of money used to fund contract work efforts, and/ or vehicles, engines, and PEMS test equipment, or other in kind contributions beneficial to the completion of the RDD program. Parties whothat contribute the use of such items such as vehicles, engines, and PEMS test equipment, or other beneficial in kind contributions will have these testthose program contributions valued as part of their overall donationcontribution based on the current fair market value of the donation. contribution. The parties further agree that this project should be funded through a single contract vehicle or work assignment ( although not necessarily a single contractor) as appropriate to support the RDD project that will be financed with EPA funds and donationscontributions from industry and CARB.

c. Execution of the Gaseous Emission Testing Program: TheIt is intended that the RDD program project will follow the attached test plan and the schedule discussed in paragraph 4d, below. All testing and subsequent data analyses will be overseen by EPA and coordinated withby EPA, the HDOH engine manufacturersmanufacturer members of EMA, and CARB. Program technical direction ( including any necessary modifications to the test plan) will be provided by a Steering Committee drawn from representatives of the Signatory parties. ThisThe Steering Committee will also track progress of program completion both in terms of technical output and schedule. EPA will keep records of Steering Committee meetings and documents related to this project and make them part of the public record for the direct final rule discussed below.

The experimental designs have beendescribed in the attached test plan will be submitted to a statistician to ensure that the information generated is sufficient and appropriate for developing the gaseous emission accuracy margins and to establish an algorithm for calculating the margins using the data derived from the program. This overall approach will provide assurance that the experimental designs are acceptable to all participants and is intended to prevent multiple and competing interpretations of the data. It will also help ensure that the program will be completed on schedule and within budget.

Participation by HDOH engine manufacturers in the testRDD programs will result in some burden to those companies, but will produce useful information. Therefore, for each engine manufacturer whothat participates in these testthe RDD programs, EPA intends to reduce saidwill limit that manufacturer's testing burden under the original pilot program ( 2005 2006 for gaseous emissions) to five vehicles per designated engine family, subject to the allowable annual cap on the number of engine families that can be designated for in use testing in a single calendar year.

d. Schedule: In order to provide adequate time to promulgate the data driven accuracy margins for gaseous emissions, the testgaseous emission portion of the RDD program will need to be completed and final accuracy margins calculated by September 30, 2006. The parties recognize that to meet this milestone all laboratory and field work needsneed to be completed prior to June 2, 2006. Toward that end, the following not  later  than dates are agreed upon by the parties: 13 Schedule for Gaseous Measurement Allowance Program Description Date1 1 FundingDefinitive funding commitment and execution of lab testing contract 15 July 2005 2 Delivery to lab of all agreed upon engines, PEMS and other equipment to be provided by engine manufacturers 8 August 20052 3 Delivery of PEMS units to be provided by PEMS suppliers, EPA or CARB 8 August 20052 34 CommencementInitial funding and commencement of lab testing 815 August 200520052 45 FundingInitial funding and execution of field testing contract 9 December 200520052 56 Completion and final funding of lab testing (~ 6 months duration) 3 February 200620062 67 Delivery of lab testing interim report 3 March 2006 78 Delivery to field of agreed upon vehicle, PEMS and other equipment 3 April 20062 89 Commencement of field testing 310 April 2006 91 0 Completion and final funding of field testing (~ 2 months duration) 2 June 200620062 10 11 Delivery of field testing interim report 30 June 2006 11 12 Delivery of contractor final report with accuracy margin inputs 15 September 2006 1All dates specified at time of close of business ( COB) 2Or when contractor requires payment or in kind equipment, whichever is later 5. Program for PM Emission Margins:

a. Scope: EPA, CARB, and the engine manufacturers have agreed to work together to prepare a test plan for developing data  driven accuracy margins for PM emissions. As is the case for gaseous emissions, itthe test plan for the PM portion of the HDIUT program will address the basic scope and objectives of this RDD program, definesand define specific analyses, laboratory experiments, and field work which need to be accomplished to develop the data driven accuracy margins. for PM emissions. The test plan is expected to contain the following basic provisions:

  3rd Third party laboratory experiments to assess emissions measurement variability of PM PEMS units incremental to that experienced in the laboratory. Results will be used to " calibrate" a computer model that will calculate the measurement allowances.   3rd Third party laboratory experiments to assess the effects of environmental parameters on the measurement accuracy capability of the PM PEMS units and their ability to operate correctly and consistently in use over a normal sampling time. Results will be used to " calibrate" a computer model that will calculate the measurement allowances.   3rd Third party on  vehicle/ trailer comparison of portable PM emission measurement versus field laboratory PM emission measurement. Results will be used to validate the computer model used to calculate the measurement allowances.

b. Costs: The 2008 PM testportion of the RDD program to develop data driven accuracy margins for PM is not intended to cost more than $ 1.5 million. EPA's participation in this agreement is subject to the availability of appropriated funds. In addition to the resources EPA commits to this effort, CARB and the engine manufacturing industry intend to donatecontribute additional resources to the Agency under Section 104( b)( 4) of the Clean Air Act. The industry intends that its donation be no more than $ 750,000. Theseit will contribute a 50% cost share up to $ 750,000, subject to EPA/ CARB ensuring the funding of the remainder of the RDD program. Those contributions may be in the form of money used to fund contract work efforts and/ or vehicles, engines, and PEMS test equipment, or other in kind contributions beneficial to the completion of the RDD program. Parties whothat contribute the use of such items such as vehicles, engines, and PEMS test equipment, or other beneficial in kind contributions will have these testthose program contributions valued as part of their overall donation based on the current fair market value of the donation. contribution. The parties further agree that this project should be funded through a single contract vehicle or work assignment ( although not necessarily a single 14 contractor) as appropriate to support the RDD project that will be financed with EPA funds and donationscontributions from industry and CARB.

c. Execution of the PM Emission Testing Program: The projectIt is intended that the RDD program will follow the test plan and schedule discussed in paragraph 5d, below. All testing and subsequent data analysis will be overseen by EPA and coordinated withby EPA, the HDOH engine manufacturersmanufacturer members of EMA, and CARB. Program technical direction will be provided by a Steering Committee drawn from representatives of the Signatory parties. This Steering Committee will also track progress of program completion both in terms of technical output and schedule. EPA will keep records of Steering Committee meetings and documents related to this project and make them part of the public record for the direct final rule discussed below.

The experimental designs to be set forth in the test plan will be submitted to a statistician to ensure that the information generated is sufficient and appropriate for developing the PM accuracy margin and to establish an algorithm for calculating the margin using the data derived from the program. This overall approach will provide assurance that the experimental designs are acceptable to all participants and is intended to prevent multiple and competing interpretations of the data. It will also help ensure that the program will be completed on schedule and within budget.

Participation by manufacturers in the testRDD programs will result in some burden to those companies, but will produce useful information. Therefore, for each manufacturer whothat participates in these testRDD programs, EPA intends to reduce saidwill limit that manufacturer's testing burden under the original pilot program ( 2006 2007 for PM emissions) to five vehicles per designated engine family, subject to the allowable annual cap on the number of engine families that may be designated for in use testing in a single calendar year.

d. Schedule: In order to provide adequate time to promulgate the data driven accuracy margins for PM emissions, the testRDD program will need to be completed and final accuracy margins calculated by September 30, 2007. The parties recognize that to meet this milestone all laboratory and field work needswill need to be completed prior to June 1, 2007. Toward that end, the following not  later  than dates are agreed upon by the parties:

Schedule for PM Measurement Allowance Program Description Date1 1 Working group agreement on PM test plan 29 July 2005 2 Final agreement on PM test plan 30 September 2005 3 FundingDefinitive funding commitment and execution of lab PM testing contract 14 July 2006 4 Delivery to lab of all agreed upon engines, PEMS and other equipment to be provided by engine manufacture. 7 August 20062 5 Delivery of PEMS units to be provided by PEMS suppliers, EPA or CARB 7 August 20062 56 CommencementInitial funding and commencement of lab PM testing 714 August 200620062 67 FundingInitial funding and execution of field PM testing contract 8 December 200620062 78 Completion and final funding of lab PM testing (~ 6 months duration) 2 February 200720072 89 Delivery of lab PM testing interim report 2 March 2007 91 0 Delivery to field of agreed upon vehicle, PEMS and other equipment 2 April 20072 10 11 Commencement of field PM testing 29 April 2007 11 12 Completion and final funding of field PM testing (~ 2 months duration) 1 June 200720072 12 13 Delivery of field PM testing interim report 29 June 2007 13 14 Delivery of contractor final report with PM accuracy margin inputs 14 September 2007 1All dates specified at time of close of business ( COB) 2Or when contractor requires payment or in kind equipment, whichever is later 15 It is the parties' intentionintent that if fundamental, irresolvable technical problems are identified relative to the PM portable emission measurement systems, the PM portion of the RDD program, the PM pilot program and/ or enforceable program goesthe PM portion of the FEP, as the case might be, will go into abeyance until such time as suitable emission measurement devices are identified and available, or the problems otherwise resolved. The PM FEP would alsoAccordingly, the parties' inability to comply with any of the dates set forth in the schedule above due to fundamental, irresolvable technical problems may result in holding in abeyance the RDD program for establishing data driven PM accuracy margins until those technical problems are resolved. Similarly, the PM portion of the FEP also will be delayed until the PM accuracy margin program discussed herein is completed. EPA would make the final determination since any revisions to the regulatory program would require a regulatory action. and two years of a PM pilot program have taken place, since there can be no PM portion of the FEP in the absence of the finalization of a data driven PM accuracy margin developed through the PM portion of the RDD program. If the PM portion of the FEP is delayed, 2007 and subsequent model year engines may be selected and subject to enforcement testing ( for gaseous as well as PM emissions) once the data driven PM accuracy margins are established and the PM portion of the FEP begins. Such engines would be counted toward the annual cap on the number of engine families that may be designated for in use testing in any single calendar year.

6. Resolution of Laboratory Measurement Error Issue: Concern has been expressed about what exactly the HDIUT accuracy margin should cover. EPA and ARB maintain that the accuracy margin is intended to address the incremental measurement variability of assessing emissions from an in use vehicle using an onboard vehicle PEMS unit versus laboratory measurements using Part 1065 compliant laboratory emissions measurement systems of NTE events as short as 30 seconds. However, EMA is concerned that laboratories using Part 1065 compliant laboratory emissions measurement systems have not yet been optimized to measure gaseous emissions over 30 second intervals, and that during this testing the laboratory error over NTE events might be significantly larger than the error that is known to exist when measuring steady state ( SET) emissions. EMA is concerned that a larger than expectedlarge laboratory NTE error could lead to a very small or nonexistent PEMS measurement allowance as discussed above., and could have a direct impact on the technological feasibility of the underlying standards.

To address this issue, the parties agree to the following terms. UsingFirst, and as detailed in the attached test plan, the error determined from emissions testing in a laboratory setting utilizing Part 1065 compliant measurement systems and testing steady state points ( within the NTE Zone) of at least two minutes duration will be subtracted from the error determined from the testing of short term 30 second transient NTE events utilizing PEMS to determine the final measurement allowances. Further, using the results of the testing in the aforementioned gaseous emissions test plan, if the lab 95th percentile NTE error is greater than the lab 99th percentile steady state ( SET) error as defined in the test plan, then EPA, ARB, and EMA would agree to the following:

a. EMA will work with EPA and ARB to optimize laboratory NTE measurement specifications and procedures. This work will primarily be in the form of participating in and supporting joint laboratory NTE test procedure development efforts and meetings. b. EPA would intend to issue a guidance document and/ or propose changes to Part 1065 to reflect any optimized specifications and procedures for laboratory NTE testing as a result of thesethose efforts and meetings no later than the end of calendar year 2008.

7. Preamble and Regulatory Provisions: The HDIUT program and associated regulatory language will be contained in a Final Rule to be promulgated in June 2005. EPA intends: 1) that the basic programmatic objectives and approach of this agreement will be reflected in the HDIUT final rule, 2) that the key provisions of this agreement will be referenced and to the degree possible contained in the preamble of the final rule, and 3) certain key provisions will also be reflected in the final rule's regulatory language, and 4) theseincluding provisions would include items such as the interim accuracy margins1, changes in the pilot program provisions, the key milestone 1 The HDIUT final rule will establish the following interim additive accuracy margins for use in connection with the pilot programs: NMHC= 0.17 g/ bhp hr; NOx= 0.5 g/ bhp hr; CO= 0.60 g/ bhp hr; and PM= 0.10 g/ bhp hr. These interim accuracy margins will have no enforceable effect and are 16 dates for the gaseous emissions and PM test programsportions of the RDD program, and also the consequences of failing to meet those dates and complete the accuracy margin test programs as specified below.

EPA intends to propose the data driven accuracy margins in direct final rules as soon as reasonably practicable after the final values and documentation are available, with the target dates of 15 December 2006 and 14 December 2007 for the rules pertaining to gaseous pollutantemission and PM emission margins, respectively. Although EPA intends to implement data driven accuracy margins by direct final rule, the Agency cannot guarantee that the results of the RDD test programs will end up being implemented in a final rule if significant adverse comments are received. The signatoriesSignatories agree to support the final accuracy margins, assuming that the agreed upon program to develop the accuracy margins is followed and the results of the RDD test programs are incorporated in the final rule. All parties agree to use thesethose accuracy margin values for their program planning and implementation efforts for the FEPsFEP.

The parties agree that publishing the direct final rule with the data driven margins, or if necessary publishing a final rule based on the data driven test results ( due to public comment on the direct final rule document), will fulfill EPA's obligation under the settlement agreement. The parties further agree that no fully enforceable in use testing program can be implemented by any party until at least three months after EPA publishes a final rule establishing data driven accuracy margins for the emissions at issue.

8. Consequences If Commitments Are Not Met: The parties agree that successful completion of this RDD project on schedule is essential to implementation of the FEPsFEP. Critical to that success is for the Signatories to meet their various commitments in a timely manner. All of the Signatories believe that, subject to the caveats set forth in paragraph 5d above the projects described in the attached test plan can be completed on time and onwithin budget and are signing this agreement in the cooperative and constructive spirit that has been exhibited in development of the gaseous emissions test plan. However, to address potential problems the following are agreed upon by all parties.

If the data driven accuracy margin values and documentation are not obtained from the contractor( s) by 15 September 2006 for gaseous emissions and 14 September 2007 for PM because a manufacturer( s) does not meet its commitments under this agreement, but the delay is less than a total of 3 months, the implementation date of the FEP wouldwill be delayed by the same number of whole months ( rounded up) that it takes to complete and finalize the final contractor report. 12 If the final values and documentation are delayed beyond 3 months, the pilot program and the FEP wouldwill go into abeyance for the pending calendar year ( i. e., 2007 for gaseous emissions or 2008 for PM). If this occurs, the number of engine families that would otherwise have been designated for testing in that year if the FEP was not delayed, would be accumulated and may be designated for testing when the FEP is initiated. TheseThose accumulated tests would not count toward the allowable annual cap on the number of engine families that may be designated for in use testing in that year. However, the normal 18 month period for testing and reporting would be expanded to 24 months for such " carryover" engine families. If necessary, this cycle would be repeated until the final accuracy margins are identified and documented in a final report with the agreement of all parties. 23 Under no circumstances, however, will an FEP be implemented utilizing the interim accuracy margins.

A delay in PM testingthe PM portion of the HDIUT program would not necessarily trigger a delay in gaseous emission testing for that calendar year. If engine families are selected for gaseous emissions testing, EPA would retain the option to select additional engine families for PM testing in subsequent years., subject to the allowable annual cap on the number of engine families that may be designated for in use testing in a single calendar year.

intended solely as interim placeholder margins until such time as accurate data driven additive accuracy margins can be determined pursuant to the RDD test programs. 12 The anticipated June 30 date for designating engine families, which initiates the 18 month testing/ reporting period, would be delayed. 23 If the cycle is repeated, the six month additional period for testing will be continued for all carryover engine families. 17 For the gaseous emission testingportion of the RDD program, a manufacturer's failure to meet its commitments may be demonstrated by missing one or more of the critical milestones as follows:

Deliverables Required from Manufacturers for Gaseous Measurement Allowance Program Description Date1 1 Funding ofDefinitive funding commitment for lab testing contract 15 July 2005 2 Delivery to lab of all agreed upon engines, PEMS and other equipment to be supplied by engine manufacturers 8 August 20052 3 FundingInitial funding of field testing contract 9 December 2005 4 Delivery to field of agreed upon vehicle, PEMS and other equipment to be supplied by engine manufacturers 3 April 20062 1All dates specified at time of close of business ( COB) 2Or when contractor requires payment or in kind equipment, whichever is later Furthermore, manufacturers are invited to voluntarily submit to EPA/ CARB laboratory information on how nondeficiency AECDs affect the accuracy of ECM derived torque/ BSFC for NTE events. EPA/ CARB will not consider such information if it is submitted after 3 March30 June 2006.

For the PM emission testingportion of the RDD program, a manufacturer's failure to meet its commitments may be demonstrated by missing one or more of the critical milestones as follows:

Deliverables Required from Manufacturers for PM Measurement Allowance Program Description Date1 1 Funding ofDefinitive funding commitment for lab PM testing contract 14 July 2006 2 Delivery to lab of all agreed upon engines, PEMS and other equipment to be supplied by engine manufacturers 7 August 20062 3 Initial Funding of field PM testing contract 8 December 2006 4 Delivery to field of agreed upon vehicle, PEMS and other equipment to be supplied by engine manufacturers 2 April 20072 1All dates specified at time of close of business ( COB) 2Or when contractor requires payment of in kind equipment, whichever is later A failure by any individual manufacturer that leads to not fulfilling one or more of the critical milestones described above ( for gaseous or PM testing) could trigger this provision for all manufacturers.

If a failure to obtain the final accuracy values and documentation from the contractor( s) by 15 September 2006 for gaseous emissions ( 14 September 2007 for PM) results from the actions or inactions of CARB or EPA or a party other than the engine manufacturers, and the delay is less than a total of 3 months, the FEP wouldwill be delayed by the same number of whole months ( rounded up) that takes to complete and finalize the final contractor report. 34 If the final values and documentation are delayed beyond 3 months, the Phase 1 pilot program would be implemented for that year using the interim accuracy margins contained in the HDIUT regulations. If necessary, and agreed upon by all Signatories, this cycle will be repeated until the final accuracy margins are derived and documented in a final report. Under no circumstances, however, will an FEP be implemented utilizing the interim accuracy margins.

Regardless of the reason, if either the FEP for gaseous or PM emissionsemission portion of the FEP is delayed, model year 2007 engines ( for gaseous emissions () and model year 2008 engines ( for PM emissions) and subsequent model year engines may be selected and subjected to testing once the accuracy margins are established and the FEP begins. Such engines would be counted toward the total number of engine families that may be designated for in use testing in any single calendar year as described earlier.

34 The anticipated June 30 date for designating engine families, which initiates the 18 month testing/ reporting period, would be delayed. 18 9. Commitment of CARB: CARB agrees to adopt and implement an HDIUT program that is fully consistent with the provisions of this agreement and with the HDIUT regulations that EPA finalizes, including, without limitation, the provisions thereof relating to the development and adoption of data driven accuracy margins.

10. Data Ownership and Use: The parties agree to work together to ensure that any contracts with thirdparties to implement the RDD program contain mutually acceptable provisions relating to the ownership, use, confidentiality and dissemination of the data derived under any such contracts.

11. Modifications: The terms of this agreement may be modified at any time and from time to time by mutual written agreement among the parties. All parties agree to meet to discuss and negotiate any revisions which in judgment of any party are needed to address significant changes in circumstances or to assure that this agreement continues to accomplish the objectives of the parties. No amendment to this agreement will take effect unless in writing and signed by authorized representatives of the parties.

10.12. General: This agreement does not imply a requirement to commit funds or other resources from any party to any other party. The activities undertaken in connection with this agreement are not intended to provide services to the Federal government and the parties agree not to seek compensation from the other parties for this work. The Federal Government is prohibited from endorsing products nor does it recommend for or against the purchase of specific products. This agreement does not negate any existing legal right or requirements, nor does it create any new legal rights, benefits, obligations or requirements, substantive or procedural, under state or federal law or equity.

EPA, CARB, EMA sig blocks and dates NGEDOCS: 008753.0001: 1145222.11145222.2 Document comparison done by DeltaView on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9: 45: 50 AM Input:

Document 1 PowerDocs:// NGEDOCS/ 1145222/ 1 Document 2 PowerDocs:// NGEDOCS/ 1145222/ 2 Rendering set Standard no color Legend:

Insertion Deletion Moved from Moved to Style change Format change Moved deletion Inserted cell Deleted cell Moved cell Split/ Merged cell Padding cell Statistics:

Count 19 Insertions 236 Deletions 146 Moved from 0 Moved to 0 Style change 0 Format changed 0 Total changes 382 20 Executive Summary In 2001, the Engine Manufacturers Association (" EMA") and a number of individual engine manufacturing companies filed suit against the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA") challenging certain supplemental emission requirements referred to as " not to exceed" (" NTE") standards. Generally, the NTE standards require that engine emissions, when sampled over intervals as short as 30 seconds and under a broad range of operating and ambient conditions that could be experienced by an engine in use, not exceed an established multiple ( either 1.5 or 1.2) of the baseline certification emission standards for the engine as assessed in an engine dynamometer emissions laboratory pursuant to the 20 minute Federal Test Procedure (" FTP"). In the litigation, EMA contended, among other things, that the NTE standards lacked a corresponding, uniform and repeatable laboratory test procedure that could be utilized to demonstrate compliance with the standards, and so were fundamentally infeasible.

On June 3, 2003, EMA and EPA ( along with the other parties to the NTE litigation) finalized a settlement of their disputes pertaining to the NTE standards. Pursuant to that settlement, EPA ( as well as the California Air Resources Board (" CARB")) issued guidance documents clarifying the types of engine emission laboratory data and steady state emissions testing that could be sufficient to evidence an engine's compliance with the NTE standards at the time of engine certification. In addition, and in recognition of the fact that the principal focus of the NTE standards concerns the emissions from engines and vehicles in use under real world operating conditions, EMA and EPA ( and CARB), as a component of their settlement, negotiated a detailed outline for a regulation to implement a manufacturer run heavy duty in use NTE testing (" HDIUT") program for diesel fueled engines and vehicles.

The outline for the HDIUT regulation recognizes that the in use emissions testing will be carried out with portable emissions measurement systems (" PEMS"). The outline also recognizes that the accuracy of the emissions measurements made by PEMS in the field under varying ambient conditions and over transient emission events as short as 30 seconds is likely to be less than the accuracy of laboratory emissions measurement systems optimized to assess steady state engine emissions over multi minute sampling events ( as under the FTP). Accordingly, the outline for the HDIUT regulatory program specifies that the in use NTE standards will include an additional margin to account for in use measurement accuracy. It was further agreed in the outline for the HDIUT regulation that the additional measurement accuracy margins for each of the emissions to be measured by the PEMS in use ( i. e., NOx, NMHC, CO and PM) will be determined through the processes and methodologies to be developed and agreed upon by EPA, CARB, and EMA.

This test plan sets forth the agreed upon processes and methodologies to be utilized to develop data driven measurement accuracy margins for the gaseous emissions to be measured by PEMS ( specifically, NOx, NMHC and CO) under the HDIUT regulatory program. It is intended that a separate test plan will be developed and agreed upon relating to the determination of an additive data driven measurement accuracy margin for PM.

As detailed in this test plan, there is a clear consensus on what components of measurement error and bias are intended to be covered by the data driven measurement accuracy margins. Specifically, the measurement accuracy margins are to be calculated in a manner that subtracts ( a) the variability of measuring heavy duty engine emissions at steady state test points within the NTE zone over sampling intervals not less than two minutes in duration and utilizing Part 1065 compliant laboratory emissions measurement systems and procedures, from ( b) the variability of measuring heavy duty engine emissions utilizing PEMS over 30 second transient NTE sampling events under a broad range of ambient and environmental conditions, so as to yield ( c) the appropriate " PEMS minus laboratory" delta ( the " Measurement Accuracy Delta"). The experimental methods and procedures specified in this test plan for determining, modeling and comparing each of the various components of measurement variability are designed to generate statistically robust data driven accuracy margins that will accurately quantify the Measurement Accuracy Delta for each of the gaseous emissions at issue ( NOx, NMHC and CO).

Under the HDIUT regulation, engine manufacturers will engage in a two year " pilot program" starting in mid 2005 ( for the gaseous emissions at issue) to assess the in use emissions from a limited number of designated engine families. The principal purpose of the pilot program is to allow manufacturers to gain practical experience in the operation of PEMS, the collection and analysis of PEMS generated emissions data, and the submission of in use testing data and results to EPA and ARB. In light of that purpose, EPA and ARB have agreed that they will not pursue any form of enforcement or remedial action based on the results from the pilot program testing. 21 The HDIUT regulation also will specify interim measurement accuracy margins that manufacturers will reference during the pilot program testing. However, a precondition to the commencement of any fully enforceable HDIUT program is the replacement of those interim accuracy margins, pursuant to a direct final EPA rule ( or other final rulemaking), with the data driven accuracy margins that will be developed pursuant to this test plan. Accordingly, the completion of the work to be performed under this test plan, and the incorporation of the resultant data driven in use measurement accuracy margins into the final HDIUT regulation, are fundamental prerequisites to the commencement of the fully enforceable HDIUT program.

Given the foregoing, the work to be completed under this test plan is a vital component to the successful implementation of a fully enforceable HDIUT program. Because of that, it is critically important that the work detailed in this test plan be carried out in as thorough, careful and timely a manner as possible.

NGEDOCS: 008753.0001: 1148052.1 22


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 40432]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17445]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4379-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Massachusetts; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-4379-DR), dated July 19,
2018, and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on July 30, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James
McPherson, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of James N. Russo as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-17445 Filed 8-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: March 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 10482]
[DOCID:fr08mr10-45]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0743; FRL-8805-2]

Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations

Correction

    In notice document 2010-3537 beginning on page 8341 in the issue of
February 24, 2010, make the following correction:
    On page 8346, in the second column, the first sentence of the last
paragraph should read:
    ``The registrant may sell and distribute existing stocks of
product(s) listed in Table 1 until February 24, 2011.''

[FR Doc. C1-2010-3537 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D