D 1 APPENDIX F 2007 FUTURE YEAR MODELING EMISSIONS INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT SAN ANTONIO EAC REGION ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION MARCH 2004 F 2 Appendix F Table of Contents Page Background                             F 5 General Refinements to the 2007 Emission Inventory ( EI) Inputs   F 5 Adjustments to Temporal Input Data              . F 5 On Road Source Emissions for 2007 Projection            .. F 5 Regional   ..                       . F 5 On Road Mobile Sources of Texas                F 6 San Antonio Region                     .. F 6 Austin Region                        ... F 7 Houston/ Galveston Region                  . F 7 Biogenic Source Emissions for 2007 Projection  .          .. F 11 Point Source Emissions for 2007 Projection..               F 11 Bexar County                        .. F 11 Tessman Road Landfill Gas ( LFG) Power Station     .. F 11 Comparison of the Deutz Engine to Flare Burning  . F 11 Toyota Facility                     ... F 12 Phase 1                    . F 12 Phase 2                    . F 12 Area Source Emissions for 2007 Projection .          ..  ... F 16 Regional                          .. F 16 San Antonio Region                     .. F 16 Degreasing   ..                  .. F 17 Non Road Source Emissions for 2007 Projection .            F 20 Regional                          .. F 20 AACOG Region   ..                     F 20 Diesel Construction & Quarry Equipment         . F 20 Tractors & Combines                  . F 20 Toyota Facility Non Road Emission Estimates for 2007    F 20 Equipment Categories               F 21 Equipment Populations             ... F 21 Emissions                   . F 21 F 3 Appendix F List of Table Page Table F 1 Photochemical Model Jobs & Files for 2007 EI Development of On Road Sources                    .. F 8 Table F 2 Estimated Emissions of Deutz Engines and those of Flare Burning at Tessman Rd. LFG Power Plant           F 11 Table F 3 Photochemical Model Jobs & Files for 2007 EI Development of Point Sources                      . F 13 Table F 4 Photochemical Model Jobs & Files for 2007 EI Development of Point Sources                      . F 17 Table F 5 2007 Non Road Source Emissions for Toyota Facility by SCC .. F 20 Table F 6 Photochemical Model Jobs & Files for 2007 EI Development of Non Road Sources                     F 22 Table F 7 2007 Emissions by Source Category for Texas for Sept. 13 ( Monday)                        . F 24 F 4 Appendix F List of Figures Page Figure F 1 2007 Estimated NOx Emissions in Tons/ Day for the San Antonio EAC Region during the September Episode          F 28 Figure F 2 2007 Estimated VOC Emissions in Tons/ Day for the San Antonio EAC Region during the September Episode          F 29 F 5 BACKGROUND The Early Action Compacts ( EAC) for both Austin and San Antonio require attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) by 2007. For this reason, development of an accurate 2007 Emission Inventory ( EI) is an important part of air quality modeling for attainment demonstration. The impacts of all federal and state air quality policies on emissions of ozone precursors and the pollution control strategies adopted by the nonattainment and EAC areas, included in the photochemical modeling domain, were taken into account when the air quality projections were made for the San Antonio area.

General Refinements to the 2007 Emission Inventory Inputs All the adjustments and refinement applied to the 1999 EI are also reflected in the 2007 EI. These adjustments and fine tunings have been documented and can be found in Appendix D of this State Implementation Plan ( SIP) document.

Adjustments to Temporal Input Data The adjustment factors were either provided by ENVIRON, or extracted from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( TCEQ) and EPA default files, or were developed in house based on the information from local surveys and local data. The EPA default data can be found online. 1 The local weekly and monthly adjustments were based on survey results from the 1999 Net Emission Trends ( NET) emissions inventories.

All hourly data was either provided by ENVIRON or extracted from TCEQ default files; there were no survey based adjustments to the hourly data. The temporal adjustments for tanker truck unloading, Source Classification Code ( SCC) 2501060053, were provided by the EPA. These temporal allocations are contained in the following files: month_ prof_ 042902. db temporal. pdf tprl_ xref_ 030701. dbf tprl_ xref_ 0307 01. xls week_ prof_ 121400. dbf wkd_ diurnal_ prof_ 121400. dbf2 ON ROAD SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR 2007 PROJECTION The mobile sources in 2007 EI account for all federal motor vehicle control programs, including the effects of offset Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle ( HDDV) defeat devices, the low emissions rebuild program, and the HDDV 2004 standard pull ahead. Emissions from on road sources are calculated using the EPA's MOBILE6 model.

Regional On road emissions for states included in the modeling domain are contained within the 36 km grid system and were provided by TCEQ. ENVIRON, a consultant company, provided emissions for the rural counties of Texas using MOBILE5, which are the best available at this time for these counties.

Mobile source projections for areas outside of Texas were developed with MOBILE6 and were provided by TCEQ to Alamo Area Council Of Governments ( AACOG).

1 Available at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ emch/ temporal/ 2 Email from Gary McGaughy ( UT Austin) received on 2/ 9/ 04, " Fwd: latest draft 2007 files." F 6 On Road Mobile Sources of Texas The Texas link based information received from Texas Transportation Institute ( TTI) was adjusted to account for two state programs: the Texas Low Emissions Diesel ( LED) Fuel program and the Texas Regional Low Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Program. The MOBILE6 model contains options for user specified alternate diesel fuel parameters. This model in conjunction with a post processing step involved applying adjustment factors to the model's outputs for NOx emissions were used to estimate the effects of TX LED fuel on the on road emissions.

AACOG staff integrated MOBILE6 on road files into the photochemical model for all major urban areas of Texas, when available. The TCEQ directory, " MOBILE6 On Road Emission Data for Texas Near Nonattainment Area Ozone Episodes Emissions for 1999 Base Case & 2007 Future Case" ( updated on December 5, 10, and 13, 2002; originally posted on October 2, 2002), contains MOBILE6 based on road mobile source emissions data that were used to support photochemical modeling efforts for the Texas near  nonattainment areas of:  Austin 3 county Region  Corpus Christi  San Antonio ( Bexar County only)  Tyler Longview  Victoria The ozone episode for the Austin, Corpus Christi, San Antonio, and Victoria areas extends from Monday September 13, 1999 through Monday September 20, 1999. The ozone episode for the Tyler Longview area extends from Friday August 13, 1999 through Sunday August 22, 1999. Inventory data exist for both the 1999 " base cases" and 2007 " future cases" of these episodes. Four " day type" inventories are provided for each area and calendar year:  Weekday ( Monday Thursday)  Friday  Saturday  Sunday The inventories were developed under contract to the TCEQ TTI and converted into a photochemical model ready format by TCEQ staff using the 2X version of the Emissions Preprocessor System ( EPS2X).

TTI provided AACOG with 2007 on road emissions for an average September weekday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Since the 1999 modeling episode, including ramp up period, spanned eight days, the average September weekday file was adjusted to account for temperature differences between Monday ( September 13, 1999), Tuesday ( September 14, 1999), Wednesday ( September 15, 1999), Thursday ( September 16, 1999), and Monday ( September 20, 1999). This methodology was the same as that used for estimating the 1999 weekday on road EI.

San Antonio Region In August 2003, TTI completed the MOBILE6 version 2 gridded on road input files for Bexar County. The files were made available by the TCEQ and provided in model ready F 7 format on that agency's file transfer protocol ( ftp) web site. 3 The TTI files provided onroad emissions for an average September weekday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Pollutant specific factors were used to convert the emissions from the 1999 county wide MOBILE5 totals to 2007 county wide MOBILE6 ver. 2 totals for Comal, Guadalupe, and Wilson counties.

Austin Region The emission files for Bastrop and Caldwell contain pollutant specific factors for converting from the 1999 county wide M5 totals to 2007 county wide M6 ver. 2 totals. Travis, Hays, and Williamson county on road emissions were developed by TCEQ and based on TTI emission estimates.

The TTI files for Austin contained an adjustment made to one roadway. 45% of the MoPac NOx emissions were removed to account for the lesser emissions on MoPac freeway as compared to the greater emissions on the IH 35 expressway. This adjustment was made because the two roads were both categorized as freeways, exaggerating the NOx emissions on MoPac.

Houston/ Galveston Region MOBILE6 on road files were also obtained for the Houston area. 4 However, the Houston on road emission rates were estimated for an August 2007 timeframe. Therefore, several adjustments were necessary to make the files suitable for use in the September 2007 episode.

The August 2007 vehicle emission rates were adjusted to reflect the correct month. This was accomplished using the MOBILE6 model. Two runs were conducted for Houston using MOBILE6: one with appropriate settings ( such as hourly temperature) for the August 2007 episode and one with appropriate settings for a September 2007 timeframe. The percent difference between the two was applied, in concert with a Vehicle Miles Traveled ( VMT) adjustment to account for the difference between total VMT for the two runs, to the 2000 Houston link based on road emission file.

The 2007 MOBILE6 LBASE input files aggregate the 28 vehicle types ( EPA) into 13 ( LDGV & LDGT1 4, HDGV2b, HDGV3, DHGV4 8b, LDDV & LDDT12 & LDDT34, HDDV22, HDDV3, HDDV4 7, HDDV8a b, MC, HDGB, HDDBT, and HDDBS) categories; the 13 roadway types are aggregated into 2 ( freeway & arterial) categories. 5 3 Available: ftp:// ftp. tceq. state. tx. us ( April 4, 2003) 4 Email: from Chris Kite ( TCEQ) received 12/ 10/ 02 ( NNA areas) and 02/ 28/ 03 ( Houston area). 5 Email: from Chris Kite ( TCEQ) received 02/ 28/ 03, " MOBILE6 LBASE Input Files for Houston." F 8 Table F 1. Photochemical Model Jobs & Files for 2007 EI Development of On Road Sources.

Region Job Scripts Input Files Description Regional ( outside Texas) emiss. mv. regional. Mobile6. fy07. xxx TCEQ processing of emissions.

Texas Rural Counties CAPCO Counties:

Bastrop & Caldwell AACOG Counties:

Comal , Guadalupe, &

Wilson pream. txnna. 4km. HPMS AMS. mv. HPMS. hourly. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 Process of 1999 MOBILE5 emissions developed by ENVIRON.

cntlem. txnna. 4km. mobile5. HPMS. 2 007 mvfactors. nonlink. 2007. yyyyyy Contain pollutant specific factors for converting from the 1999 countywide M5 totals to 2007 county wide M6 ver. 2 totals ( Bastrop, Caldwell,

Comal, Guadalupe, & Wilson). 6 Also projects other Texas rural county emissions from 1999 to 2007 MOBILE5.

Houston counties:

Fort Bend Harris Waller lbase. mobile6.4km. 2007. houston chmspl. mobile6.4km. 2007. houston grdem. mobile6.4km. 2007. houston mobile6.2007.55mph.$ county. yyyyyy. lbase_ in Processing of 2007 emissions.

55mph scenario advised by TCEQ. 7 cntlem. mobile6.4km. houston. 2007 ctl. onroad. LINKS. daily. yyyyyy Project emissions from August 2007 to September 2007. 8 Bexar and Victoria county lbase. mobile6.4km. 2007. LINKS. b chmspl. mobile6.4km. 2007. LINKS. b grdem. mobile6.4km. 2007. LINKS. b m6.2007.$ county. xxx. yyyyyy. lbase_ in Process the MOBILE6 on road emission inventory by UT based on TTI emissions data. 9 cntlem. mobile6.4km. LINKS. 2007 madjin. dummy.$ county. yyyyyy Adjusts mobile6 on road emission inventory for individual episode weekdays 2007 for Bexar County. 10 6 Email: Alba Webb ( UT Austin) received 11/ 17/ 03: " RE: 2007 Mobile6.2 Files for Austin/ San Antonio",

7 Email: from Chris Kite ( TCEQ) received 02/ 28/ 03, " MOBILE6 LBASE Input Files for Houston."

8 Email: from Chris Kite ( TCEQ) received 02/ 28/ 03, " MOBILE6 LBASE Input Files for Houston."

9 Email: from Gary McGaughy ( UT Austin) received 09/ 25/ 03, " FWD: 2007 Mobile6.2 Files for Austin/ San Antonio." F 9 Corpus Christi 2 county region lbase. mobile6.4km. 2007. corpus chmspl. mobile6.4km. 2007. corpus grdem. mobile6.4km. 2007. corpus m6.2007. Corpus_ 2County. xxx. yyyyyy. lbase_ in Process the mobile6 on road emission inventory based on TTI emissions data. 11 Gregg and Smith counties lbase. mobile6.12km. LINKS. 2007 chmspl. mobile6.12km. LINKS. 2007 grdem. mobile6.12km. LINKS. 2007 m6.2007. Tyler_ 2County. xxx. 08yy. lbase_ in AACOG process of MOBILE6 emissions with local data for August 2007.

cntlem. mobile6.12km. LINKS. 2007 ctl. onroad. LINKS. daily. yyyyyy Project emissions from August 2007 to September 2007.

Houston/ Galveston 8 county region lbase. mobile6.12km. houston. 2007 chmspl. mobile6.12km. houston. 2007 grdem. mobile6.12km. houston. 2007 mobile6.2007.55mph.$ county. hourly. 08yy. lbase_ in Process of MOBILE6 emissions based on TTI processing with local data for August 2007. 12 cntlem. mobile6.12km. houston. 2007 ctl. onroad. LINKS. daily. yyyyyy embr. chmspl. mv. LINKS. 12km.$ county. hourly. xxx.

yyyyyy. a0 Project emissions from Aug. 2007 to Sept. 2007.

Houston Galveston 8

County region, Gregg county and Rural Counties mrguam. mobile6.12km. mv. 2007 emiss. mv. mobile6.12km. gregg. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. mv. mobile6.12km. brazoria. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. mv. mobile6.12km. chambers. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. mv. mobile6.12km. fortbend. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. mv. mobile6.12km. galveston. xxx. yyyyyy a0 emiss. mv. mobile6.12km. harris. xxx. yyyyyy a0 emiss. mv. mobile6.12km. liberty. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. mv. mobile6.12km. montgomery. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. mv. mobile6.12km. waller. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. mobile5. mv. HPMS. 12km. 2007.$ hpms_ xxx. yyyyy y. a0 Script for running MRGUAM module Mobile emission inventory ( 12km level)

All Texas Counties mrguam. mobile6.4km. mv. 2007 emiss. mv. mobile6.4km. bexar. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. m6. links. 4km. Austin_ 3County. roadnox. yyyyyy emiss. mv. LINKS. 4km. nueces. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. mv. LINKS. 4km. sanpatricio. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. mv. links. 4km. vic. yyyyyy emiss. mv. LINKS. 4km. fortbend. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 Script for running MRGUAM module for the Mobile emission inventory ( 4km level) in 2007. Austin files provided by UT and based on TTI emission data, contain IH

35/ MoPac adjustment. 13 Victoria 10 Email: from Gary McGaughy ( UT Austin) received 09/ 25/ 03, " FWD: 2007 Mobile6.2 Files for Austin/ San Antonio."

11 Email: from Chris Kite ( TCEQ) received 08/ 29/ 03, " 1999 Gridded Onroad Mobile CAMx Files for NNA Subdomain."

12 Email: from Chris Kite ( TECQ) received 02/ 28/ 03, " MOBILE6 LBASE Input Files for Houston."

13 Email from Alba Webb ( UT) received 01/ 16/ 04, " Revised Mobile files." F 10 emiss. mv. LINKS. 4km. harris. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. mv. LINKS. 4km. waller. xxx. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. mv. mobile5. HPMS. 2007.$ hpms_ day. yyyyyy. a0 emission files provided by UT based on TTI emission data. 14 Texas and Regional mrguam. mv. all_ reg. mobile6.2007 emiss. mv. all_ counties. 12km. yyyyyy. a0 emiss. mv. regional. Mobile6. fy07. xxx Merge Mobile emissions for the Regional Grid, 2007. 15 14 Email from Alba Webb ( UT) received 03/ 11/ 04, " RE: Gifs attached."

15 Email: from Ron Thomas ( TCEQ) received 12/ 03/ 03, " more HDD 2007 EI parts." F 11 BIOGENIC SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR 2007 PROJECTION Emission rates that result from natural processes in vegetation and soils were developed for the year 1999 by TCEQ technical staff using the GLOBEIS mode ( TNRCC). Because changes in biogenic emissions are very difficult to predict, the EPA recommends the use of identical biogenic emission rates between base year and future year models. Therefore, the 2007 simulation incorporates TCEQ's 1999 biogenic emissions input files.

POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR 2007 PROJECTION TCEQ maintains comprehensive, annual point source databases for the State of Texas. In addition, the state agency develops point source projections for use in modeling, SIP development, and other applications. AACOG staff obtained the 2007 Texas electricgenerating unit ( EGU) and non electric generating unit ( NEGU) emission files developed for the Houston SIP and used the data to update the 2007 emission inventory inputs. These files were supplemented with local data when available. Some examples of local data used are the 2007 emission projections for Lackland Air Force Base hospital EGUs and the City Public Service power plants, which were provided to AACOG by the facilities' staff and incorporated in the 2007 simulation.

Since emission projections must account for growth and control factors, the 2007 point source emissions were developed based on the anticipated impacts of two Texas laws promulgated in 1999: Senate Bill 7 and Senate Bill 766. Senate Bill 7 limits NOx emissions from grandfathered electric generating facilities and Senate Bill 766 increases emission fees on grandfathered non electric generating facilities.

Bexar County Tessman Road Land Fill Gas ( LFG) Power Station The proposed Tessman Road LFG Power Station is located in Bexar County near Converse, TX. Emissions from station are based on six Deutz TBG 620 V16 engines producing electricity from methane and other landfill gases.

Comparison of the Deutz Engine to Flare Burning AACOG Solid Waste Advisory Committee ( SWAC) stated in the memorandum to the Board of Directors, dated November 29, 2001, that the project will not create a significant impact on the air quality of the area. While the NOx emissions increase, the VOCs and Particular Matter emissions show decreases from the estimated levels for flare burning.

Table F 2. Estimated Emissions of Deutz Engines and those of Flare Burning at the Tessman Rd LFG Power Plant.

Pollutant Deutz Engine : 6 Engines ( tons/ day) Flame Burning Equivalent to 6 Engines ( tons/ day) NOx 0.179 0.065 CO 0.596 0.352 VOC 0.049 0.073 PM 0.027 0.055 F 12 Toyota Facility Toyota proposed to build the plant in two phases. Estimates from plant construction emissions are not included. The emissions discussed in this appendix are from operation of the plant only. 16 Phase 1  Emission estimations from production for period beginning with Start of Production ( SOP) in 2006 until Phase 2 SOP:   VOC = 5 tons/ day * 250 days/ yr. = 1250 tons per year ( Emissions mainly from painting, cleaning, sealers, adhesives, & Natural Gas Combustion.)   NOx = 0.34 tons/ day * 365 days/ yr. = 125 tons per year ( Emissions mainly from Nat. Gas boilers/ space heaters/ misc. process heating; this rate is a maximum and will decrease in the summer months.)   CO = 0.2 tons/ day * 365 days/ yr. = 73 tons per year ( Emissions from same Nat. Gas sources listed above.)   SO2 = 1 2 TPY ( Emissions from same emitters as Nat. Gas sources listed above.)   PM = 0.16 tons/ day * 250 days/ yr. = 40 tons per year ( Emissions mainly from combustion, painting, and welding.)

Phase 2  Production estimation following Phase 2 SOP beginning between 2008 2010 All emissions are projected to double with Phase 2 SOP.

16 Toyota Motor Manufacturer North America ( TMMNA), November 18, 2002. F 13 Table F 3. Photochemical Model Jobs & Files for 2007 EI Development of Point Sources.

Counties/ Region Job Script Input Files Description Regional lo_ pt. grdem. Aug30. reg_ 12km. reg_ egu_ hdd2007_ noTX lo_ pt. grdem. Aug30. reg_ 12km. reg_ negu_ hdd2007_ noTX pstpnt. out. Aug30. reg_ 12km. reg_ egu_ hdd2007_ noTX pstpnt. out. Aug30. reg_ 12km. reg_ negu_ hdd2007_ noTX HDD EI: Two top files are for low level emissions (< 30m above the ground). Two bottom files are for high level emissions (> 30m above the ground).

tceq_ egu_ 2007_ 02102004. afs TCEQ processing emissions data for S and PO. 17 control. 07TX HG_ egu SB7 and Ch. 117 NOx rules for EGUs in TX outside of HGA.

control. HG_ NOxCap_ EGU Houston/ Galveston 8 county EGUs to the levels of the 2007 & 2010 NOx Cap ( MECT),

88% EGU NOx reduction from 2000.

pts. TX_ egus. 2007. v15b control. austin_ egu Austin Area NOx control factors for facility specific value. 18 pts. TX_ new_ egus. 2007. v15b afs. hgmcr2004. new_ egu_ TX. lcp. austin TCEQ processing of Texas S and PO NEW EGU 2007 point sources. ( Original file:

afs. hgmcr2004. new_ egu_ TX. lcp 19). 20*

mrguam. pts. nna4km. 2007 emiss. pt. TX_ negu. 008030.2007. v15b emiss. pt. TXnna4km_ minorpts. 99po. xxx emiss. pt. TXnna4km_ offshore. xxx emiss. pt. hrly_ egu. 000830.2007. v15b Merging point sources in NNA Texas 4km modeling domain. Elevated CPS emissions not merged. Offshore emissions were not increased.

pts. TX_ egus. 2007. v15b 21 tceq_ egu_ 2007_ 02102004. afs Processing of Texas 2007 S and PO for existing EGUs.

afs. tx_ negu. agg_ re. 000818 000906. v15b. 3pols. lcp TCEQ processing of Non EGUs. 22 Texas Counties pts. TX_ negu. 2007. v15b control. 00 07. DFW. NEGU. NOx Cntlem package for DFW NEGUs.

17 Ron Thomas & Gabriel Cantu ( TCEQ), 2/ 9/ 04.

18 Thomas Pavlovic ( UT Austin), 02/ 11/ 04.

19 Ron Thomas & Gabriel Cantu ( TCEQ), 2/ 9/ 04.

20 Email: from Gary McGaughey ( UT Austin) received 02/ 12/ 04, " 2007 TX pt source data and jobs."

21 Ron Thomas and Gabriel Cantu ( TCEQ) 02/ 06/ 2004 22 Email: from Gary McGaughey ( UT Austin) received 02/ 12/ 04, " 2007 TX pt source data and jobs." Input data received from Ron Thomas and Gabriel Cantu 02/ 06/ 2004 F 14 control. 2007. BPA. NEGU Includes survey results and BPA NOx emission factors, Chapter 117 limitations to obtain 2000 2007 control factors.

control. HG_ 07NOxCap_ NEGU HGA 8 co NEGUs to the levels of the 2007 NOx a 52% reduction from 2000.

TIPIEGASGrowthFactors00to07 Project from 2000 to 2007 using TIPI factors,

EGAS where TIPI data was unavailable.

AgreedOrdersControlFactors00to07 This packet controls emissions according to Agreed Orders from 2000 emissions to 2007.

ctl. alco Control factors set to provide 28.50 TCEQ tpd to 26.66 tpd. 23 Texas Counties pts. TX_ negu. 2007. v15b ( continued) ctl. lehigh NOx control factors to revise Lehigh Cement Kiln. 24 afs. toyota afs. toyota. 2007 Process of the afs ( geo coded) for Toyota Phase1.

Bexar County afs. tessman afs. tessman. 2007 Process of the afs ( geo coded) emissions from Tessman Road LFG Power Station.

Regional mrguam. pts. all_ reg. 2007 emiss. pt. hrly_ egu. 000830.2007. v15b emiss. pt. hrly_ new_ egu. 000830.2007. v15b emiss. pt. TX_ negu. 008030.2007. v15b emiss. pt. TX_ offshore. xxx lo_ pt. grdem. Aug30. reg_ 12km. reg_ egu_ hdd2007_ noTX lo_ pt. grdem. Aug30. reg_ 12km. reg_ negu_ hdd2007_ noTX Regional low level point sources where developed by TCEQ. 25 * The input afs file is the originals TCEQ file with NOx emissions for AE Sand Hills multiplied by factor of 1.0798 to bring the total from the TCEQ value of 0.9502 tpd to 1.0260 tpd. ( Thomas Pavlovik, 2/ 11/ 04).

23 Email: from Thomas 02/ 12/ 2004.

24 Email: from Gary McGaughey ( UT Austin), received 02/ 12/ 04, " 2007 TX pt source data and jobs." Original data supplied by Bill Gill ( CAPCO).

25 Email: from Ronald Thomas ( TCEQ), received 01/ 12/ 04, " Updated 2007 HDD points." F 15 AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR 2007 PROJECTION Regional Area emissions for states outside of Texas, but within the 36 km grid modeling domain, were projected to 2007. The Heavy Duty Diesel Emissions Inventory26 ( HDD EI) was used for emissions outside of the state of Texas.

San Antonio Region Area source emission projections were calculated for 2007 using the Economic Growth Analysis System ( E GAS) model, with the exception of area source population based emissions. EPA endorses the use of E GAS when emission growth estimates for area source are not readily obtainable by conducting surveys or taping other local sources. E GAS generates surrogate growth indicators via the following information [ Pechan, 2001]: Constant dollar output/ value added estimates for 172 economic sectors; Physical output estimates, such as gasoline consumption, for some major emitting source categories; Estimates of energy consumption by fuel type; Population; and Personal consumption expenditures for gasoline and oil Using EGAS, the 2007 projected emissions were figured as follows:

= X The EGAS model supplied growth factors for projecting of all area source emissions except Architectural Surface Coatings and Consumer/ Commercial Solvents. For these categories, population base projection methodology was used. The emissions were multiplied by the percent increase in population between 1999 and 2007.

Modeling performed by AACOG accounted for the State's Stage I Vapor Recovery Rule. The rule requires vapor recovery equipment for large retail gasoline outlets and bulk terminals. 27 A methodology for modeling the state low NOx water heater regulation, slated for implementation in 2002, has not yet been determined for this area. Therefore, this rule has not been included in the 2007 base case. It is anticipated that the low NOx water heater rule will have little affect on ozone levels in the San Antonio EAC Region ( SAER).

Several state regulations were also accounted for in the development of the projected area source emissions as directed by TCEQ. Rate of Progress control factors ( ENVIRON) were used for several area sources in developing the 2007 projections. The controls account for reduced pollutant emissions by improved future techniques and/ or regulations. The following list details the categories subject to the rate of progress control factors: LUST Architectural Coatings Traffic Markings High Performance Maintenance 26 Email from R. Thomas. 27 Available online: http:// tnrcc. state. tx. us/ exec/ media/ press/ o6 99cleangas. html x. xxxx tons/ yr. ( 2007 VOC Emissions) y. yyyy ( Adjusted EGAS Growth Factor for 2007) z. zzzz tons/ yr. ( 1999 VOC Emissions) F 16 Other Specific Purpose Coatings Another regulation is the Regulation V Rule which affects only " Factory Finished Wood" in the " Surface Coatings" subcategory. The emissions were ensured to reflect an emission reduction by 99%.

Degreasing The reductions applied to degreasing equipment are based on the Texas Administrative Code ( TAC) Chapter 106 and 115. The emission reductions of 85% apply only to the growth from 1999 to 2007. This calculated to a 5.128 tons/ day reduction which is 30.52% of the 2007 base case emissions. Appendix I of this SIP covers the degreasing control strategy in more detail. F 17 Table F 4. Photochemical Model Jobs & Files for 2007 EI Development of Area Sources.

Region Job Script Input Files Description Regional ( outside Texas) emiss. ar. regional. hdd. fy07. xxx Processing of emission files. 28 Regional mrguam. ar. all_ reg. 07po emiss. ar. reg_ tx. net07.02062004. xxx emiss. nr. reg_ tx. net07.02062004. xxx emiss. ar. regional. hdd. fy07. xxx emiss. offr. regional. NonRoad. fy07. xxx emiss. offr. reg_ hdd_ nonNR. fy07. xxx Merges Area and Non road emissions for the Regional Grid in 2007. Includes updated regional HDD ( non Texas) emissions for 2007.

Texas counties ar. reg_ tx. eps2.2007.02062004 ams. TX_ 07. area07_ b3 Process of the regional area source inside of Texas. Input: TCEQ 2007 Area Source Updates,

Feb. 2004, received from Jim Mackay.

ams. aacog. area. b Process of the ams non population based.

ctl. aacog. area. egas Project with EGAS growth factors ( PECHAN).

ctl. aacog. area. pop Zero out population based emissions.

ctl. aacog. area. rop Rate of progress controls.

ar. sa. 07 ctl. stage1_ 125. aacog Accounts for Stage I reductions.

ams. aacog. area. 2007 Processing of the ams population based.

ar. sa. pop. 07 ctl. aacog. area. rop Rate of progress controls.

afs. capco. aacog. area Process of the afs ( geo coded) with local data for 2007. No CAPCO ( 1999 AACOG EI).

ctl. aacog. area. egas Non population based area sources projected with EGAS growth factors ( PECHAN).

ctl. aacog. area. rop Rate of progress controls. 29 ctl. stage1_ 125. aacog Stage1 controls at 125,000 gallons or more throughput.

ctl. degreasing. eq. 2007 Degreasing reductions applied to growth from 1999 to 2007 only.

AACOG 12 County Region afsar. sa. 07 ctl. aacog. obvr. 0709xxx OBVR controls ( 4 county San Antonio EAC region) based on Mobile6 database.

28 Email: from Gary McGaughey ( UT Austin), received 02/ 16/ 04, " RE: 2007 TX pt source data and jobs," containing TCEQ 2007 Nonroad Source Updates ( 02/ 04) from Jim Mackay, located at ftp:// ftp. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ pub/ OEPAA/ TAD/ Modeling/ file_ transfer/ TxareaNR/ files 29 Package to apply Rate of Progress ( ROP) Controls, prepared by Steven Smeltzer, June. 17, 2003, AACOG. Also applying ROP controls seven area source cataegories in the San Antonio 4 county area prepared by ENVIRON, Aug. 28, 2001 F 18 afsar. austin. 07 2007_ weekday_ area_ capco_ 02242004.

afs Process of the afs ( geo coded) area sources for Austin 5 county area with local data for 2007. 30 Austin 5 county Metropolitan Statistical Area ( MSA) ar. aust. 07. b 2007_ weekday_ area_ capco_ 02242004_

withlawn. ams Process of the ams area sources for Austin 5 county area with local data for 2007 ams area nsp. prn Process the area emissions with local data.

Corpus Christi 2 County Region ar. cc. 07 ctl. area. regional EGAS 4.0 Model Projection of regional EI from 1999 to 2007 ( PECHAN).

Victoria 7 County Region Vict_ area_ 2007. ams Vct_ 2007_ fire. ams Emissions files provided by UT, includes local data. 31 30 Source: Gary McGaughey ( UT Austin) Feb. 24, 2004 31 Email: from Gary McGaughey ( UT Austin), received 11/ 16/ 03. F 19 NON ROAD SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR 2007 PROJECTION Non road projected 2007emissions for states outside of Texas, but within the 36 km grid system modeling domain, were provided by TCEQ. The Heavy Duty Diesel Emissions Inventory ( HDD EI) was used for emissions outside of the state of Texas.

AACOG Region To project the non road emissions for the AACOG counties, the EPA's NONROAD Model was employed. NONROAD runs were conducted for a typical summer day ( weekday and weekend day) in 1999 and in 2007. A projection factor resulted from the ratio of the 1999 results to 2007 results by SCC. The factors were then applied to the 1999 emissions to form estimates for 2007. The exceptions to this are where local data was incorporated.

Diesel Construction & Quarry Equipment The 1999 data for quarry equipment was updated with local surveys, permit data and aerial photography as described in Appendix D, 1999 Base Case Emission Inventory Development.

Tractors and Combines The 1999 data for quarry equipment was processed separately because they were combined into one category for 2007; thus emissions could not be projected from the 1999 emissions.

Toyota Facility Non Road Emission Estimates for 2007 Table F 5 summarizes the 2007 non road emissions estimates for the planned Toyota production plant in Bexar County, Texas. The subsequent documentation explains the methodology in calculating the emissions. F 20 Table F 5. 2007 Non Road Source Emissions for Toyota Facility by SCC.

SCC Equipment description Est Equip Pop NOx Emissions ( tons/ day) CO Emissions ( tons/ day) VOC Emissions ( tons/ day) 2265003020 4 Str Forklifts 2.3 0.001134 0.057436 0.002539 2267003020 LPG   Forklifts 39.6 0.083179 0.312698 0.000107 2268003020 CNG   Forklifts 4.6 0.005978 0.022539 0.000008 2270003020 Dsl   Forklifts 12.7 0.013099 0.017362 0.001344 2265003010 4 Str Aerial Lifts 4.0 0.000315 0.023246 0.000822 2267003010 LPG  Aerial Lifts 2.1 0.001034 0.003813 0.000001 2270003010 Dsl  Aerial Lifts 4.1 0.001159 0.001003 0.000239 2260003030 2 Str Sweepers/ Scrubbers 0.4 0.000001 0.000106 0.000017 2265003030 4 Str Sweepers/ Scrubbers 2.3 0.000237 0.019885 0.000599 2267003030 LPG  Sweepers/ Scrubbers 0.7 0.000740 0.002769 0.000001 2268003030 CNG  Sweepers/ Scrubbers 0.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 2270003030 Dsl  Sweepers/ Scrubbers 4.2 0.006187 0.004507 0.000826 2265003070 4 Str Terminal Tractors 0.7 0.000135 0.006891 0.000301 2267003070 LPG  Terminal Tractors 0.1 0.000466 0.001741 0.000001 2268003070 CNG  Terminal Tractors 0.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 2260003040 2 Str Other General Industrial Eqp 0.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 2265003040 4 Str Other General Industrial Eqp 9.8 0.000203 0.038259 0.001020 2267003040 LPG  Other General Industrial Eqp 0.2 0.000220 0.000826 0.000000 2268003040 CNG  Other General Industrial Eqp 0.0 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 2270003040 Dsl  Other General Industrial Eqp 8.3 0.007399 0.002255 0.000618 2265003050 4 Str Other Material Handling Eqp 0.2 0.000025 0.001946 0.000065 2267003050 LPG  Other Material Handling Eqp 0.1 0.000055 0.000204 0.000000 2270003050 Dsl  Other Material Handling Eqp 0.6 0.000431 0.000286 0.000072 TOTAL 0.121999 0.517774 0.008580 Equipment Categories The equipment categories chosen in this non road emissions estimate are the same categories used in the Industrial Equipment Section of EPA's NONROAD Model.

Equipment Populations The first step in this process is the estimation of plant equipment populations for each equipment category. A ratio of the number of Toyota employees to the number of manufacturing employees (~ SIC 20) in Texas was used to estimate the plant equipment population. The populations for each category were calculated based on the following formula:

Equipment ( Type N) Population = Equipment Population In Texas x ( Toyota Plant Employees / Industrial Workers in Texas)

Example: The Texas equipment population for diesel powered forklifts was 6,227. The number of manufacturing employees in Texas was 982,205. The estimated Toyota plant F 21 employment population is 2000. Using this information, an estimate of diesel powered forklifts for the planned Toyota Plant can be calculated as follows:

Toyota Diesel Fork Lift Population = 6,227 Diesel Forklifts in Texas x ( 2,000 Toyota Emp./ 982,205 Ind. Workers in TX.) = 12.68 Diesel Forklifts for Toyota Emissions A run of the NONROAD model was conducted to estimate CO, NOx, and VOC emissions for a typical weekday in the summer season 2007 for the state of Texas. A ratio of the estimated equipment population for Toyota and the equipment population of Texas was then used in the calculation of emissions. The emissions for each category were based on the following formula:

Emissions ( Tons/ Day) of Equip ( Type N) = Texas Emissions x ( Est. Toyota Equip Population / Texas Equip Population)

Example: Toyota NOx Emissions of Diesel Forklifts = 6.4319 Texas NOx tons/ day x ( 12.68 Dsl. Toyota / 6227 Dsl. TX. Forklifts) = 0.0131 tons/ Day of NOx Houston/ Galveston Region & Rural Texas Counties The Houston/ Galveston county emissions were processed with the Texas rural county files and are based on TEXAQS. There are several control packages that account for minor adjustments to these emission files. This is the same method used in the Houston SIP. The first is the Nonroad TCAS gas controls for Texas attainment counties. The California Spark control package is for the Houston/ Galveston area and applies to large construction, Industrial, commercial, & lawn and garden sources. The next control package is also for the Houston/ Galveston area and applies to gas can emission reductions. The last one is for the VMEP Plus factor any applies to Houston counties. This factor reduces the NOx by about 33 t/ d and the VOCs by about 1.86 t/ d from the nonroad emissions. Refer to Table F 3 for the specifics on these control packages. F 22 Table F 6. Photochemical Model Jobs & Files for 2007 EI Development of Non Road Sources.

Counties Job Script Input Files Description Regional ( outside Texas) emiss. offr. reg_ hdd_ nonNR. fy07. xxx emiss. offr. regional. NonRoad. fy07. xxx Process emission files. 32 ams. TX_ 07. NR07_ b4b Process 2007 nonroad source updates ( orig. 02/ 04 Jim Mackay). 33 control. nonr. att. tcas_ gas. 07 Nonroad TCAS gas controls for TX attainment counties.

control. nonr. HG. CaliSpark California Sparkplug Engines rule: lg const., ind., and comm. HDG 2/ 4 stk gas vehicles to get 2.8 t/ d NOx, 7.58 t/ d VOC. 34 control. nonr. HG. gascan Hou./ Gal. Gas can 0.757 VOC reduction factors: 1( 0.45* 0.54) . 35 Texas Counties nr. reg_ tx. eps2.2007.

02062004 control. nonr. hg. VMEPplus Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction Program ( VMEP): TERP,

accelerated Tier2/ Tier3 purchases, water heater rule, and stationary compression ignition ( CI) engines for HGA.

Victoria 7 County Region VCT07_ NR02Ayyyyyy. VOC_ TPD. ams Vict_ nr. ams2007 Emission processing. Top file contains day specific emissions data. Bottom file is average data.

ams nonroad nsp. prn Processing of the ams emissions for non geocoded emissions ( ENVIRON).

Corpus Christi 2

County Region nr. cc. 07 ctl. othercounties. nonroad Project emissions to from 1999 to 2007 ( based on Nonroad Model.

afs_ nr. aust. 2007 2007_ nonroad_ final_ capco. afs. xxx Process the afs ( geo coded) non road sources with local data. 36 CAPCO 5 county MSA nr. austin. 07 2007_ nonroad_ final_ capco. ams. xxx P rocess the geo coded non road sources for Austin 5 county area with local data.

CAPCO Rural counties nr. capco. 07 ams. capco. nonroad. b Processing of the ams emissions with local data ( CAPCO EI)

CAPCO Rural counties nr. capco. 07 ctl. othercounties. nonroad Project emissions from 1999 to 2007 ( Nonroad Model based).

Cntlem Package to update Non Road Sources for all Texas counties with Non Road Model, 2000 AACOG 12 County Region afs. toyota afs. toyota. 2007 Process of the afs ( geo coded) non road and area sources for Toyota Phase1. 37 32 Email: from Gary McGaughey ( UT Austin) received 02/ 16/ 04, " RE: 2007 TX pt source data and jobs," containing TCEQ 2007 Nonroad Source Updates ( 02/ 04) from Jim Mackay, located at ftp:// ftp. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ pub/ OEPAA/ TAD/ Modeling/ file_ transfer/ TxareaNR/ files 33 Email: from Alba Webb ( UT Austin) received 02/ 12/ 04, " RE: 2007 TX pt source data and jobs."

34 Alison Pollack ( TCEQ) information, 07/ 10/ 00.

35 Karla ( TCEQ), received 01/ 21/ 03.

36 Email: from Gary McGaughey ( UT Austin) received 01/ 26/ 04, " RE: Area and Nonroad ams/ afs and cntlem files." F 23 afs. nonroad. capco. aacog. a Processing of the afs ( geo coded) emissions with local data.

ctl. zero. austin Remove Austin emissions ( in different job script.)

ctl. construction. 99 Adjust diesel construction equipment emissions for recalculation of equipment population.

afs_ nr. sa. 2007 clt. aacog. nonroad Project emissions from 1999 to 2007 with the Nonroad Model.

ctl. aacog Cntlem Package to update Non Road Sources in the regional area with Non Road Model & Railroad Equipment.

afs. quarry. aacog Processing of the afs ( geo coded) quarry emission with 2007 local data.

afs. quarry. 2007 ctl. aacog. nonroad Project emissions from 1999 to 2007 with the Nonroad Model.

afs. tractors_ combines. sa Processing of the geo coded emission sources with local data.

afs_ tractor. combine.

sa. 07 ctl. aacog. nonroad Project emissions from 1999 to 2007 with the Nonroad Model.

ams. aacog. nonroad. b Processing of the ams emissions with local data.

ctl. construction. 99 Adjust diesel construction equipment emissions for recalculation of equipment population.

nr. sa. 07 clt. aacog. nonroad Project emissions from 1999 to 2007 with the Nonroad Model.

ams. tractors_ combines. sa Processing of the ams emissions for the non geocoded emissions.

AACOG 12 County Region tractors_ combines. s a. 2007 clt. aacog. nonroad Project emissions from 1999 to 2007 with the Nonroad Model.

37 The area sources are based on permitted values provided by Toyota , and non road sources are based on employment data and the Non road Model 2002 version 2.2.0 ( industrial equipment  SIC Code 20). D 24 Table D 7. 2007 Emissions by Source Category for Texas for Sept. 13 ( Monday) Non Road Emissions Area Emissions Mobile Emissions Point Emissions County FIPS Code NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC 48001 3.8 0.5 0.5 6.3 2.0 1.5 2.4 1.3 48005 1.9 2.3 0.3 6.5 4.8 2.3 6.1 10.5 48007 0.8 4.9 0.3 1.5 0.7 0.4 1.1 0.8 48009 0.5 0.4 0.2 15.9 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 48011 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 48015 5.9 0.7 1.1 3.5 3.3 1.0 0.1 1.2 48023 0.7 0.5 0.3 2.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 48025 0.7 0.2 1.3 8.6 1.2 0.6 1.4 0.0 48027 10.5 3.2 0.7 16.0 11.6 6.1 0.4 2.8 48033 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48035 4.8 1.2 0.1 1.8 0.7 0.5 5.7 0.2 48037 6.8 1.6 0.3 7.9 8.6 3.5 0.6 1.9 48039 6.9 4.7 5.0 15.1 6.2 3.4 33.3 23.4 48041 3.5 2.2 1.0 11.7 6.5 3.2 4.0 0.2 48045 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 48047 0.2 0.7 1.5 2.4 0.8 0.6 2.0 1.0 48049 1.6 1.1 2.7 10.2 1.8 1.2 0.5 1.7 48051 4.4 0.5 0.7 6.5 1.1 0.5 2.0 0.9 48059 3.2 0.2 0.5 5.5 3.2 0.9 0.6 0.1 48061 7.0 10.7 0.8 18.5 8.8 7.7 2.5 2.3 48063 1.8 0.8 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 48065 2.3 0.1 0.7 2.7 0.5 0.2 1.4 0.3 48067 5.7 1.1 0.3 3.8 2.1 1.2 6.4 8.7 48071 0.9 2.9 6.2 5.2 3.8 1.8 8.2 11.0 48073 3.6 0.6 0.6 5.7 2.1 1.5 7.4 0.7 48075 2.3 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 48077 2.2 0.5 0.3 6.4 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.2 48081 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.7 0.3 0.2 3.1 0.5 48083 1.3 0.3 1.7 5.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.0 48085 20.3 6.2 2.3 15.8 16.0 8.8 3.1 1.4 48087 0.5 0.1 1.5 2.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 48089 1.9 1.0 1.1 3.5 4.5 1.2 2.3 1.4 48093 0.8 0.3 0.7 2.8 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 48095 0.5 0.4 0.2 2.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 48097 3.1 1.3 0.3 11.0 3.1 1.7 0.0 0.2 48099 1.0 0.3 0.2 3.6 1.4 1.2 0.0 0.3 48101 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 48105 0.1 0.4 16.9 23.0 1.6 0.5 0.6 0.0 48107 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 48113 62.9 29.3 17.8 73.6 89.4 44.9 14.3 13.2 48119 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 48121 9.6 5.1 2.5 19.0 14.8 7.8 2.0 1.9 48125 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 48127 0.1 0.1 0.6 3.1 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.1 48129 2.5 0.8 0.0 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 48131 0.9 0.1 2.1 6.3 0.7 0.5 1.1 1.7 F 25 48133 3.3 0.4 3.9 8.7 4.1 1.1 1.2 0.6 48137 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.2 0.1 0.1 5.1 1.9 48139 11.2 2.2 0.3 10.3 6.3 3.0 39.1 5.7 48143 0.8 0.6 1.1 4.7 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.3 48145 3.7 0.3 0.1 2.4 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 48147 1.1 0.4 0.3 3.9 1.5 0.9 16.5 0.4 48151 2.0 0.2 0.1 3.0 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 48153 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 48155 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 48157 6.5 2.9 1.7 14.6 9.4 4.8 16.0 3.5 48159 0.4 0.5 0.2 1.7 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 48161 2.3 0.3 3.8 7.6 3.2 1.1 45.0 5.1 48167 4.3 9.2 4.3 12.1 5.7 3.3 24.4 37.3 48169 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 48177 2.2 0.8 0.1 2.8 2.8 0.9 0.0 0.4 48179 3.3 0.4 4.4 15.4 2.1 1.0 18.5 8.8 48181 7.3 2.9 0.7 13.4 7.3 3.8 1.5 0.2 48183 5.0 1.3 2.5 18.8 6.3 3.3 9.8 4.3 48185 7.5 0.7 1.1 3.1 1.5 0.7 24.9 1.5 48191 1.5 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 48193 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 48195 0.4 0.1 1.1 1.9 0.1 0.1 2.0 0.2 48197 2.7 0.2 0.2 2.1 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.1 48199 2.7 0.4 0.5 4.8 2.2 1.3 1.3 1.9 48201 51.7 26.6 20.6 115.7 96.9 57.5 84.3 142.6 48203 5.1 1.3 2.7 10.9 9.6 2.8 34.0 20.1 48207 1.2 0.3 0.2 3.3 0.5 0.3 3.2 0.1 48211 3.5 0.2 5.2 5.9 0.4 0.2 7.7 2.0 48213 3.6 2.1 1.1 8.0 2.9 2.0 6.5 0.7 48215 13.9 12.7 6.1 32.8 16.0 14.3 8.5 2.8 48217 5.8 1.4 0.2 4.6 4.4 1.8 0.0 0.2 48221 0.7 0.4 1.1 3.1 1.4 0.8 20.5 0.7 48223 1.9 0.7 0.1 4.2 3.6 1.6 1.0 0.1 48225 2.2 0.9 0.2 2.8 1.3 0.6 0.0 1.9 48227 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48231 2.5 2.0 0.3 9.6 5.8 2.8 0.3 0.1 48233 0.1 0.0 0.8 3.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 48235 0.1 0.0 0.8 5.4 0.2 0.1 1.2 0.3 48237 0.1 0.1 4.6 11.4 0.5 0.3 2.9 1.5 48241 5.3 1.2 0.3 3.0 1.9 1.2 7.3 3.0 48245 7.3 4.9 8.4 18.0 13.4 6.6 65.5 66.9 48247 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.1 48249 1.8 0.4 1.4 5.0 2.3 1.2 5.0 1.5 48251 7.5 1.0 0.3 8.7 4.6 2.5 5.7 0.8 48253 1.2 0.3 0.1 5.0 1.3 0.7 3.0 0.1 48257 3.9 1.0 0.2 10.7 4.9 2.6 10.5 2.3 48261 1.7 5.4 0.4 1.3 0.7 0.5 1.5 0.7 48263 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.1 2.6 0.2 48267 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.8 1.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 F 26 48269 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 48271 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 48273 1.4 2.9 1.1 4.1 1.5 0.9 9.2 2.4 48275 0.9 0.2 0.3 2.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 48277 6.0 1.1 0.2 6.7 2.4 1.5 6.3 1.2 48281 1.1 0.2 0.0 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 48283 1.1 0.5 0.9 2.4 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 48289 3.8 0.3 1.1 3.8 2.8 1.0 0.8 0.3 48291 3.1 1.0 0.5 5.5 2.8 1.6 4.3 2.4 48293 3.0 0.6 1.3 4.6 0.8 0.6 34.4 0.9 48295 1.6 0.1 3.8 5.5 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.1 48297 3.9 1.4 1.3 3.4 1.8 0.9 2.8 3.5 48307 1.0 0.2 0.2 2.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 48309 8.7 4.0 0.6 16.7 11.8 6.0 35.7 0.7 48311 1.0 0.4 2.4 4.6 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 48313 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.6 1.8 0.6 0.4 0.0 48315 1.6 0.6 0.3 1.7 0.6 0.4 7.0 0.9 48319 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 48321 7.7 6.4 1.2 6.2 1.8 0.9 8.5 1.3 48323 0.4 0.6 0.4 3.6 1.4 0.9 0.1 0.0 48327 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 48331 6.8 0.5 0.1 7.8 1.5 0.8 13.2 0.2 48333 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 48335 0.9 0.2 0.0 8.3 1.9 0.5 22.9 0.4 48337 3.7 0.7 0.3 9.4 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.9 48339 4.3 3.4 1.8 12.8 11.8 6.0 4.6 3.4 48343 1.4 0.5 0.0 1.8 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.4 48345 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 48347 1.3 1.2 0.9 7.2 3.8 1.8 2.8 5.6 48349 4.9 1.3 0.2 8.5 3.0 1.5 5.4 2.6 48351 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.8 0.7 0.5 4.2 3.1 48353 2.8 0.3 0.3 4.6 2.9 0.9 7.5 0.4 48355 54.5 22.7 0.9 49.8 14.0 8.3 78.1 29.7 48357 1.8 0.3 3.8 7.9 0.6 0.3 3.2 0.3 48361 4.1 1.5 0.5 3.9 5.9 2.5 42.5 16.7 48363 3.6 1.6 5.7 9.6 1.6 0.9 6.1 0.6 48365 1.7 1.1 8.0 13.3 2.0 1.1 13.0 4.1 48367 4.3 1.1 3.9 8.9 4.5 2.3 6.9 1.1 48373 0.8 2.1 0.5 3.8 3.4 1.6 2.5 6.2 48379 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 48385 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 48387 0.6 0.2 0.0 2.0 0.8 0.5 2.2 0.0 48391 3.1 1.1 1.6 5.2 1.2 0.6 5.0 2.9 48393 2.1 0.1 2.4 3.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.0 48395 6.9 0.5 0.4 2.5 1.3 0.6 6.9 0.8 48397 1.3 0.7 0.1 2.5 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 48399 1.2 0.3 0.2 4.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 48401 4.9 1.1 4.7 8.4 2.2 1.5 62.9 3.4 48403 1.5 2.1 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 1.0 F 27 48405 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 48407 0.2 0.8 0.2 1.5 1.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 48409 21.7 16.0 0.2 16.2 3.5 2.0 12.2 1.4 48411 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 48413 0.2 0.0 2.5 3.8 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.2 48415 3.8 0.4 0.1 10.5 1.3 0.7 4.5 1.8 48417 0.3 0.1 0.9 8.8 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.2 48419 2.1 0.7 0.9 3.7 1.7 0.7 0.5 0.0 48423 6.5 2.5 1.0 13.7 10.8 6.2 4.1 9.3 48425 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 48427 1.0 0.3 4.2 7.3 1.5 1.3 4.8 0.5 48429 0.7 0.5 2.9 8.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 48431 0.1 0.0 2.4 6.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 48433 0.3 0.1 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 48435 0.1 0.1 13.1 12.8 1.8 0.5 5.3 1.1 48439 52.3 18.0 9.0 58.1 63.2 31.4 9.9 10.0 48441 6.0 2.9 0.5 14.9 9.7 4.3 0.1 1.4 48447 0.4 0.1 0.3 4.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 48449 1.7 0.8 0.1 3.1 3.1 1.2 73.6 1.5 48451 2.6 1.9 0.6 11.6 5.1 2.6 2.0 0.1 48455 1.2 1.9 0.0 1.1 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.4 48457 0.2 0.8 0.1 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 48459 3.6 0.4 3.2 9.5 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 48463 4.5 2.2 0.1 2.6 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 48465 2.0 2.0 0.7 3.3 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 48467 3.1 0.5 0.3 5.3 4.5 2.3 0.9 0.9 48471 2.0 1.1 0.2 3.4 4.5 1.7 0.1 1.2 48473 2.2 1.2 0.4 2.0 1.1 1.2 2.6 0.7 48477 2.3 1.6 0.7 4.4 2.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 48479 4.2 2.3 12.7 22.6 6.9 4.4 2.7 0.2 48481 2.6 0.8 2.0 7.9 2.9 1.4 3.6 1.8 48483 0.6 0.1 3.3 5.6 2.6 0.6 0.9 0.0 48485 3.4 1.3 0.7 33.3 6.6 4.3 20.7 6.8 48487 2.9 0.4 0.5 6.1 1.4 0.9 17.7 0.2 48489 2.0 2.3 0.2 3.0 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.1 48497 5.6 1.0 13.0 18.4 3.1 1.9 8.3 2.2 48499 2.8 2.4 0.4 5.3 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 48503 0.8 0.6 1.3 14.0 0.8 0.5 13.1 1.5 48505 0.3 1.8 8.3 8.4 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.2 48507 0.3 0.1 0.5 2.7 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 F 28 Figure F 1. 2007 Estimated NOx Emissions in Tons/ Day for the San Antonio EAC Region during the September Episode.

Modeling Day Mobile Point Area Non Road Total Day 1 80.8 75.1 4.7 42.6 203.2 Day 2 81.5 75.1 4.7 42.6 206.2 Day 3 82.3 75.1 4.7 42.6 207.1 Day 4 85.0 75.1 4.7 42.6 209.7 Day 5 78.9 75.1 4.7 42.6 203.6 Day 6 49.7 74.7 4.1 23.7 152.2 Day 7 36.2 74.7 3.5 23.0 137.4 Day 8 84.0 75.1 4.7 42.6 208.7 81 81 82 85 79 50 36 84 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 43 43 43 43 43 24 23 43 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 0 80 160 240 320 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Modeling Day Tons/ Day Non Road Area Point Mobile F 29 Figure F 2. 2007 Estimated VOC Emissions in Tons/ Day for the San Antonio EAC Region during the September Episode.

Modeling Day Mobile Point Area Non Road Total Day 1 50.4 13.5 83.4 31.3 178.6 Day 2 50.3 13.5 83.4 31.3 178.6 Day 3 50.7 13.5 83.4 31.3 178.9 Day 4 51.1 13.5 83.4 31.3 179.4 Day 5 52.2 13.5 83.4 31.3 180.5 Day 6 33.5 8.5 61.0 35.2 138.2 Day 7 26.9 8.5 33.0 35.0 103.5 Day 8 53.7 12.5 83.4 31.3 180.9 50 50 51 51 52 34 27 54 14 14 14 14 14 12 83 83 83 83 83 61 33 83 31 31 31 31 31 35 35 31 9 9 0 80 160 240 320 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Modeling Day Tons/ Day Non Road Area Point Mobile F 30 REFERENCES:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), July 1998. Information Sheet # 6: Effect of the New National Low Emission Vehicle Standard for Light Duty Gasoline Fueled Vehicles. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available online: http:// www. epa. gov/ oms/ m5. htm Texas Administrative Code ( TAC), 2004. Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 1: Degreasing Process: § 115.412 & § 115.415. Available online: http:// www. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ oprd/ rules/ pdflib/ 115_ ind. pdf TAC, 2004. Chapter 117, Subchapter B, Division 4: Cement Kilns: § § 117.260, 117.261, 117.265, 117.273, 117.279, and 117.283. Available online: http:// www. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ oprd/ rules/ pdflib/ 117_ ind. pdf Texas Transportation Institute ( TTI), Texas A& M University System, June 2003. San Antonio Metropolitan Statistical Area On Road Mobile Source Modeling Emissions Inventories: 1999, 2007, and 2012. College Station, Texas. Available as Appendix C, On Road Mobile Emissions Inventory Development, San Antonio EAC Region Attainment Demonstration, March 2004.

Alamo Area Council of Governments ( AACOG), August 2001. " 1999 Emissions Inventory for the Alamo Area Council of Governments Region." San Antonio, Texas.

AACOG, November 2001. " 2007 Projected Emissions Inventory for the Alamo Area Council of Governments Region." San Antonio, Texas.

ENVIRON, August 2002. Final Report: Emissions Processing for the Joint CAMx Photochemical Modeling of Four Southern Texas Near Non Attainment Areas, Novato, California.

AACOG, June 2001. " 1999 Emissions Inventory for the Capital Area Planning Council ( CAPCO) Region." San Antonio, Texas.

US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), June 2000. National Nonroad Emissions Model. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

US Census Bureau, April 2001. Geographic Area Statistics: Annual Survey of Manufacturers. Washington, District of Columbia.

PECHAN, January, 2001. " Economic Growth Analysis System: Version 4.0". Durham, North Carolina.

ENVIRON, 2001. " Future Year Ozone Modeling of the Austin Texas Region," pp. 3 19. Novato, Califonia.

TNRCC, 2001. Projects2: TNRCC emissions/ WO1 improve EI/ biogenics. doc. Austin, Texas.

University of Texas at Austin ( UT), Center for Energy and ENVIRONmental Resources. F 31 EPA, August, 2001. Draft User's Guide to MOBLIE6.0: Mobile Source Emission Factor Model ( EPA420 D 01 003).

EPA, 1991. Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone. Volume 1. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

TRC Environmental Corporation. " Gasoline Marketing ( Stage I and Stage II)", Emission Inventory Improvement Program, ( Volume III, Chapter 11). Available online: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ eiip/ techreport/ volume03/ iii11_ apr2001. pdf


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 200 (Friday, October 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62487-62488]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26294]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0099]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Automatic Emergency
Braking

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants the petition for rulemaking submitted by
the Truck Safety Coalition, the Center for Auto Safety, Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, and Road Safe America on February 19, 2015, to
establish a safety standard to require automatic forward collision
avoidance and mitigation systems on certain heavy vehicles. For several
years, NHTSA has researched forward collision avoidance and mitigation
technology on heavy vehicles, including forward collision warning and
automatic emergency braking systems. The agency will continue to
conduct research and to evaluate real-world performance of these
systems through track testing and field operational testing. NHTSA will
determine whether to issue a rule in the course of the rulemaking
proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

DATES: October 16, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call Dr.
Abigail Morgan in the Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-
1810. For legal issues, you may call Mr. David Jasinski or Ms. Analiese
Marchesseault in the Office of Chief Counsel at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may
send mail to these officials at: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 19, 2015, the Truck Safety
Coalition, the Center for Auto Safety, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, and Road Safe America (hereon referred to collectively as the
``petitioners'') submitted a petition to NHTSA. Their petition
requested that the agency initiate rulemaking to establish a new
Federal motor vehicle safety standard to require vehicle manufacturers
to install forward collision avoidance and mitigation (FCAM) systems on
all vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds
or more. The petitioners claimed that FCAM systems have the potential
to provide significant safety, economic, and societal benefits.
    On May 4, 2015, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)
submitted a letter supporting the petition for rulemaking. However,
CVSA recommended that the mandate for FCAM systems apply to vehicles
with a GVWR of 10,001 pounds or more (rather than 10,000 pounds or
more) to better conform to existing commercial motor vehicle safety
classes.
    There are a number of terms being used by industry and regulators
for FCAM technology, including forward collision warning (FCW), crash
imminent braking (CIB), dynamic brake support (DBS), automatic
emergency braking (AEB), and collision mitigation braking (CMB).
Consistent with the terminology used in the petitioners' request, in
this notice, the FCAM technologies of focus are the systems that
combine FCW alert signals with CMB automatic braking capability.
    FCAM systems use forward-looking sensors, typically radars and/or
cameras, to detect vehicles in the roadway. When a rear-end crash is
imminent, the FCW system warns the driver of the threat. If the driver
takes no action, such as braking or steering, or if the driver does
brake but not enough to avoid the crash, a CMB or AEB system may
automatically apply or supplement the brakes to avoid or mitigate the
rear-end crash.
    In their petition for rulemaking, the petitioners cited estimated
safety benefits from a 2012 research study \1\ conducted by the
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), which
evaluated the performance and effectiveness of these current and future
generation systems. They also identified the systems that are
commercially available. The petitioners believe that mandating
technology through regulation is the fastest way to ensure the
potential safety benefits. Additionally, they believe that additional
safety benefits may be achieved from future FCAM systems that may have
higher levels of performance than the current systems and that may be
able to respond to additional crash scenarios other than rear-end
crashes, such as vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes. Furthermore, the
petitioners believe that a mandate would cause the system costs to
decrease due to high production volumes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Woodrooffe, J., et al., Performance Characterization and
Safety Effectiveness Estimates of Forward Collision Avoidance and
Mitigation Systems for Medium/Heavy Commercial Vehicles, Report No.
UMTRI-2011-36, UMTRI (August 2012). Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0067-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For several years, NHTSA has been conducting research on heavy
vehicle FCAM technologies. This research includes test track
evaluations of first generation systems, evaluation of driver-warning
interface effectiveness, and an ongoing field operational test of
production systems. Based on this research, the agency agrees with the
petitioners that FCAM systems have the potential to save lives by
preventing or reducing the severity of rear-end crashes.
    The industry has indicated that next generation automatic emergency
braking systems for truck tractors will be commercially available later
this year and will have improved performance that enables the vehicle
to warn the driver and automatically brake in response to stationary
lead vehicles. In addition to the increased performance from the next
generation systems, industry is also expected to begin production of
automatic emergency braking systems on air-braked single unit trucks
with a GVWR of more than 26,000 pounds in the near future.
    The agency's test experience has been limited to first generation
production systems on truck tractors and a prototype system on a
motorcoach, and the agency is aware of a few vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 10,000 pounds and less than or equal to 26,000 pounds sold
in the U.S. currently equipped with AEB systems. The agency plans to
test the next generation systems as they become available, including
AEB systems that are installed on vehicles with a GVWR greater than
10,000 pounds and less than or equal to 26,000 pounds. If available,
NHTSA would consider this additional information in the rulemaking.
    The European Union (EU) Commission Regulation No. 347/2012 requires
an advanced emergency braking system (AEBS) with forward collision
warning on most new heavy vehicles, with some exceptions.\2\ The test
scenarios, vehicle speeds, and performance criteria in EU Commission
Regulation No. 347/2012 differ from the test criteria that NHTSA
developed for its light vehicle automatic emergency braking evaluation
that the agency plans to add to its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP),
which has been the basis for the test criteria used to evaluate heavy
vehicles. The agency will consider the test criteria required by the
European regulation, as it

continues to develop its heavy vehicle test procedures and performance
metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Commission Regulation (EU) No 347/2012; of 16 April 2012
implementing Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament
and of the Council with respect to type-approval requirements for
certain categories of motor vehicles with regard to advanced
emergency braking systems. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:109:0001:0017:EN:PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering the information before the agency, including the
information referenced in the petition, NHTSA grants the February 19,
2015 petition in accordance with 49 CFR part 552 and initiates a
rulemaking proceeding with respect to forward collision avoidance and
mitigation systems on vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.
The granting of the petition from Truck Safety Coalition, the Center
for Auto Safety, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and Road Safe
America does not mean that the agency will issue a final rule. The
determination of whether to issue a rule is made after study of the
requested action and the various alternatives in the course of the
rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30162, 30166, and
49 CFR part 552; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Raymond R. Posten
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-26294 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


                       SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards Residual Risk and Technology Review for Carbon Black Production

       IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1(a) Title of the Information Collection
 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards Residual Risk and Technology Review for Carbon Black Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart YY), EPA ICR Number 1983.12 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 2060-0489.

      1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

This supporting statement addresses information collection activities that will be imposed by amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Carbon Black Production source category in the Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards, 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY, referred to as the Carbon Black Production Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. The current Carbon Black Production MACT standards were promulgated on July 12, 2002 (67 FR 46257).

      As part of the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) for the NESHAP, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to correct and clarify regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; add requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results and other compliance-related reports; include additional requirements for applicability/compliance performance testing; and add annual boiler tune up requirements for specified affected sources. This information collection request documents the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and burden imposed by these amendments.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information collection request (ICR) includes the burden for all activities that will be conducted in the first three years following promulgation of the final amendments to the Carbon Black Production MACT standards only as they relate to the changes made as a result of the RTR and "other" actions under the proposal. These activities include reading the rule, conducting and documenting compliance applicability testing/calculations, and completing the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these notifications, reports, and records, and retain the file for at least five years. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. The use of the term "Designated Administrator" throughout this document refers to the U.S. EPA or a delegated authority such as a state agency. The term "Administrator" alone refers to the U.S. EPA Administrator.

Note that there are 15 currently operating carbon black production facilities, and it is assumed that no facilities would be constructed/modified within three years after promulgation of the rule. Therefore, over the next three years, it is estimated that 15 carbon black production facilities will be subject to this standard, and the total average labor, capital, and operations and maintenance costs imposed by the amendments will be approximately $180,000 per year for the first 3 years after the amendments are finalized with most costs being incurred in the first year (an estimated $430,000). The burden to the respondents from each facility is shown in Tables 1 through 4 in Attachment 1.

The total average annual cost to the Designated Administrator during the 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be approximately $10,000 per year after the amendments are finalized with most costs being incurred in the first year (an estimated $20,000). This burden includes labor costs for the Federal EPA and state and local authorities to implement the requirements in the NESHAP after the amendments are finalized. This burden is shown in Tables 5 through 8 of Attachment 2.

       Need for and Use of the Collection

      2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

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

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

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from carbon black production facilities cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NESHAP were promulgated for major sources in this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.

      Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on MACT to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the "residual risk review." In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years and revise the standards as necessary taking into account any "developments in practices, processes, or control technologies." This review is commonly referred to as the "technology review." When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the "risk and technology review." As part of the RTR for the NESHAP, the EPA is proposing amendments to correct and clarify regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; add requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results and other compliance-related reports; include additional requirements for applicability/compliance performance testing; and add annual boiler tune up requirements for specified affected sources.

      2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in these standards ensure compliance with the applicable regulations which where promulgated in accordance with the Clean Air Act. The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Applicability assessment performance tests are required to determine if an affected facility is required to control emissions under the NESHAP and documentation is necessary to confirm/verify these determinations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The notifications required in these standards are used to inform the Agency or Designated Administrator when a source is conducting applicability and compliance performance tests, and when a source is subject to the requirements of a regulation. In some cases, the Designated Administrator may choose to observe performance tests. The Designated Administrator may also use information to inform an inspection of the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, and the standards are being met.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The required semiannual (periodic) reports are used to determine periods of excess emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify operation/maintenance procedures and ongoing compliance with standards.

       Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting will be required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY.

      3(a) Nonduplication

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

      3(b) Public notice prior to ICR submission to OMB

A public notice and solicitation of public comment on this collection will be provided in the Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking published for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards Residual Risk and Technology Review for Carbon Black Production

3(c) Consultations

      The public will be provided the opportunity to review and comment on the burden estimated in this Information Collection Request during the comment period for the proposed rulemaking.
      The Agency has consulted industry experts and internal data sources to project the number of affected facilities and industry growth over the next three years. Industry trade association(s) and other interested parties were provided an opportunity to comment on the burden associated with these standards as they were being developed and that these same standards have been reviewed previously to determine the minimum information needed for compliance purposes. In developing this ICR, we consulted with internal experts at EPA's Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards (OAQPS). OAQPS had previously contacted the International Carbon Black Association in developing a source count inventory.

      3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection

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

      3(e) General Guidelines

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the regulations promulgated by OMB under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      These Carbon Black Production MACT standards require the respondents to maintain all records, including reports and notifications for at least five years. The EPA believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent the Part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based. The retention of records for five years allows EPA to establish the compliance history of a source, any pattern of non-compliance and to determine the appropriate level of enforcement action. The EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have violations extending beyond five years. In addition, EPA would be prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of essential records.

3(f) Confidentiality

      All information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR 2, subpart B  - Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976, amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g) Sensitive Questions

The reporting or recordkeeping requirements in the standard do not include sensitive questions.

       THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATIONREQUESTED
      4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes
The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of new or existing major source carbon black production facilities. This includes, but is not limited to, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 325182 (carbon black production) facilities/sources.

      4(b) Information Requested

       Data Items

In this ICR, all data that is recorded or reported is being proposed to be required by the Carbon Black Production MACT standards (40 CFR, part 63, subpart YY). The tables below reflect new requirements based on the proposed amendments only.

      A source must make the following reports:

                             Notifications/Reports
 Notification of Intention to Conduct Performance Test Dates
 40 CFR 63.999(a)(1).
 Performance Test Results (including applicability assessments)
 40 CFR 63.1110(a)(1)(9)
 Notification of Compliance Status Reports
 40 CFR 63.1110(d)
 Periodic Reports
 40 CFR 63.1110(e)

      A source must keep the following records:

                                Recordkeeping
 Each notification and report (related to proposed amendments)
 40 CFR 63.1109(a) (e.g., 40 CFR 63.1103(f)(3)(iii)(F), and 63.999(a)(1))
 Control applicability records
 40 CFR 63.1109(d) (e.g., 40 CFR 63.1103(iv))

      Subsequent Performance Test Requirements (Every 5 Years (60 Months)
      The proposed RTR amendments add the requirement to conduct performance tests every 5 years after the conduct of the initial performance test (or last performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the Carbon Black Production MACT standards) to ensure continued/ongoing compliance with the standards.
      Electronic Reporting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of the proposed RTR amendments, respondents are required to use the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) to develop performance test reports and submit them through the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The ERT is an application rather than a form, and the requirement to use the ERT is applicable to numerous subparts. The splash screen of the ERT contains a link to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements, such as the OMB Control Number, expiration date, and burden estimate for this and other subparts. In this proposal, respondents would also be required to submit notifications and semiannual reports through the EPA's CEDRI. The notification is an upload of their currently required notification in portable document format (PDF) file. The semiannual reports are to be created using Form 5900-484, the electronic template included with this Supporting Statement. The template is an Excel spreadsheet which can be partially completed and saved for subsequent semiannual reports to limit some of the repetitive data entry. It reflects the reporting elements required by the rule and does not impose additional reporting elements. The OMB Control Number is displayed on the Welcome page of the template, with a link to an online repository that contains the PRA requirements. For purposes of this ICR, it is assumed that there will be no additional burden associated with the proposed requirement for respondents to submit the notifications and reports electronically.

       Respondent Activities

                             Respondent Activities
 Read instructions.
 Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instruction and requirements (e.g., due to removal of SSM-related changes).
 Write and submit notifications/reports
 Enter and maintain information required to be recorded based on proposed amendments (e.g., for boiler tune up reports).

       THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

      5(a) Agency Activities

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

                             Agency Activities
 Review notifications and reports required to be submitted by industry.
 Prepare annual reports
 Input, analyze, and maintain data in Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)

      5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Initial compliance applicability test/performance test requirements/documentation is used by the Agency to discern a source's applicability to/compliance with the emission standard. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The periodic reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is reported by state and local governments in the ICIS-Air database, which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. ICIS-Air is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for industrial and government-owned facilities. EPA uses ICIS-Air for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.
      The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner/operator for five
 years.

      5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

      There are no small entities (i.e., small businesses) affected by this regulation.

      5(d) Collection Schedule

Upon promulgation of the amendments, owners or operators of carbon black production facilities have up to a year to comply with most of the compliance testing/calculations, reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the amendments. For purposes of burden estimates, it is assumed that facilities will read the rule and perform the required applicability/compliance testing associated with process vents after the main unit filter (MUF) in year 1. For subsequent performance testing requirements (requirement to conduct every 5 years (60 months), it is assumed that 20 percent of existing facilities (3 facilities) will conduct performance tests every year in the first three years (starting in year 1). The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Tables 1 through 3 of Attachment 1.

       ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

Tables 1 through 4 of Attachment 1 present an itemization of the burden on the respondents subject to this NESHAP for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the first three years following promulgation of the amendments to the Carbon Black Production MACT standards. Tables 5 through 8 of Attachment 2 present a summary of the burden on the Federal EPA and state and local authorities in the first three years following promulgation of the amendments to the Carbon Black Production MACT standards.

The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

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

      6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be around 290 hours. The average annual recordkeeping hours are estimated at around 150 hours and the reporting requirement hours are estimated at around 140 hours, both of which are shown in Table 4 of Attachment 1. These hours are based on Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, and related ICRs.

      6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

 The information collection activities for sources subject to these requirements are presented in Tables 1 through 4 of Attachment 1. The total cost for each respondent activity includes nonlabor costs, capital/startup costs, and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs.

       Estimating Labor Costs

      This ICR uses the following labor rates:

      Managerial	$139.36 ($66.36 + 110%)
      Technical	$101.64 ($48.40 + 110%)
      Clerical	$47.57 ($22.65 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2019, "National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Sectors 31, 32, and 33  -  Manufacturing." The rates are from column 8, mean hourly wage for "Management Occupations," "Architecture and Engineering Occupations," and "Office and Administrative Support Occupations." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

       Estimating Capital/Start-up and Operation and Maintenance Costs

In addition to the labor costs mentioned above, industry costs associated with the information collection activities in the proposed amendment to the carbon black MACT standards include capital/start-up costs and operation and maintenance costs associated with the cost to conduct/complete applicability/performance testing. For purposes of burden estimates, these tests are assumed to be conducted/completed by off-site contractors.

       Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
Below are the estimated capital and startup costs associated with applicability and performance testing for the respondents that would be subject to the proposed changes to the Carbon Black Production MACT standards for the first three years after promulgation of the amendments.
                                 (A)
Testing
                              (B)
Cost Per Test
             (C)
Total Number of Respondents Over 3-Year Period
                            (D)
Total Cost
(B X C)
                                   Footnotes
                             Periodic 5-Year Test

                                       a
                                  Method 25A
                                    $15,241
                                       9
                                   $137,169
                                       b
                        New Initial Performance Testing

                                       c
                                  Method 25A
                                   $21,350
                                      15
                                   $320,250
                                       d
                                     TOTAL

                                      24
                                   $457,419

                                    AVERAGE

                                       8
                                   $152,473

   Footnotes:
(a) Assumes 20% (3) of the total source category will annually perform the Periodic 5 -year test. Or 60% (9 facilities) in the 3 years of this ICR
(b) The estimated cost of this test would be $15,241 and is required once every 5 years. We assumed that 20 percent of existing facilities (3 facilities) will need to perform these tests every year.
   (c) The proposed rule requires all existing facilities (15 facilities) perform initial performance testing on vents downstream of the main unit filter (MUF) to determinate applicability within the first year of the promulgated amendments.
   (d) The estimated cost of this test would be $21,350 but is only required once.

The total estimated capital and startup costs associated with applicability/performance testing for the respondents over the ICR 3-year period are $460,000, at an average estimated cost of $150,000 per year.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. The Agency's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions (and attendance during the conduct of performance testing at a facility), and the publication and distribution of collected information.

      The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR based on proposed changes to the Carbon Black Production MACT standard is estimated to be about $10,000.

      This cost is based on the average hourly labor rates as follows:

      Managerial 	$66.62 (GS-13, Step 5, $41.64+ 60%) Technical	$49.44 (GS-12, Step 1, $30.90+ 60%)
      Clerical	$26.75 (GS-6, Step 3, $16.72 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 2019 General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay. The rates have been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages available to government employees. Details on the line item estimates used to calculate these burdens are presented in Tables 5 through 8 of Attachment 2.

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

The total number of respondents is also referred to as the respondent universe. Based on research conducted for the RTR of the Carbon Black Production MACT standards, 15 facilities are currently operating and subject to the standards and no new sources are assumed in the first three years after promulgation of the proposed amendments. It is assumed that all of the facilities will begin complying within one year of promulgation of the proposed amendments and will be subject to recordkeeping and reporting requirements in each of the three years covered by this ICR.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

 The Respondent Tally
Over the first three years after finalizing the amendments, the total annual labor hours for respondents are estimated to be at 870 hours at a cost of approximately $540,000. The average annual labor hours over those three years is estimated to be 290 hours per year at a cost of approximately $180,000 per year. Furthermore, the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9 hours per response. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Tables 1 through 4 of Attachment 1.
The total operation and maintenance costs associated with proposed additional applicability/performance test requirements assume that an off-site contractor will perform and prepare a report of their test results. These costs are estimated to total approximately $460,000 over the three-year period, at an estimated average cost of a little over $150,000 per year.

        The Agency Tally

 The average annual burden over the first three years for the Agency is estimated to be 190 hours at a cost of approximately $10,000. The Agency burden hours and costs are presented in Tables 5 through 8 of Attachment 2.

6(f) Reasons for change in burden

      The amendments to the NESHAP for Carbon Black Production (40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart YY) addressed in this ICR (1) revise provisions in the NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YY) to remove the SSM exemption and SSM plan and periodic report requirements; (2) require electronic submittal of performance test results; and (3) where applicable, adjustments for these amendments are reflected in Tables 1 and 2 of this ICR.

      The burden estimate for reading and understanding the rule requirements was adjusted to reflect the time it would take industry to review the amended rule. Burden estimates were removed for developing SSM plans and submitting periodic SSM reports. We estimate that the burden associated with the separate recordkeeping requirements for periods of SSM that are being removed to be approximately the same as the burden associated with the recordkeeping requirements for deviations from rule requirements and, therefore, did not adjust burden for recordkeeping and semiannual compliance reporting.
      In this proposal, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), the EPA is also proposing to broaden the applicability of the existing emission limit for process vents associated with the MUF to include all process vents. This would require facilities to conduct emissions testing on the additional process vents after the MUF, so that sources will be able to determine which vents have concentrations at or above the applicability threshold. In addition, the EPA is also proposing to add changes to require annual tune-up requirements for applicable process heaters/boilers. Lastly, we are proposing that owners or operators of carbon black production process vents subject to the rule conduct performance tests every 5 years to demonstrate continued compliance with the NESHAP. The respondent burden estimates for the proposed requirements include becoming familiar with and modifying operational plans according to the newly proposed requirements, observing a percentage of affected source performance/applicability tests, preparing associated notifications and reports, and conducting the associated recordkeeping requirements. The Delegated Administrator/Agency burden estimates for the proposed requirements include becoming familiar with the newly proposed requirements, reviewing the associated notifications and reports, and preparing annual compliance summary reports.
      6(g) Burden Statement

The annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 9 hours per response. Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.

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

 To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, the EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505. An electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. The documents are also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the docket center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0505 and OMB Control Number 2060-0489 in any correspondence.

                       PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

 This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in data collection associated with this regulation.

                                  ATTACHMENT 1

                             TABLES 1, 2, 3, and 4

             Tables 1 - 3:	Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR  -  Years 1-3

             Table 4:	Summary of Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR

    Table 1 - Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 1

    Table 2 - Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 2

    Table 3 - Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 3

Table 4 - Summary of Annual Respondent Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR

                                                ATTACHMENT 2

                              TABLES 5, 6, 7, and 8

             Tables 5 - 7:	Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 1-3

             Table 8:	Summary of Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR

    Table 5 - Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 1

    Table 6 - Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 2

    Table 7 - Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR - Year 3

                                   Table 8 - Summary of Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Carbon Black Production RTR