MEMORANDUM

FROM:	Lisa Hanle, U.S. EPA, Climate Change Division

TO:	Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0147, 2011 Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments to Certain Provisions of the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.

DATE:		May 12, 2011

SUBJECT:	Summary of questions raised on various subparts of the final Mandatory
            Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule (40 CFR Part 98) after promulgation that are addressed in the proposed 2011 Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments to Certain Provisions of the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.0	INTRODUCTION

      The 2009 final GHG reporting rule (2009 final rule) was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on September 22, 2009 and published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009).  The 2009 final rule, which became effective on December 29, 2009, included reporting of GHGs from various facilities and suppliers, consistent with the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.  Subsequent notices were published in 2010 finalizing the requirements for subparts FF, II, and TT (75 FR 39736, July 12, 2010), subpart W (75 FR 74458, November 20, 2010), subpart DD (75 FR 74774, December 1, 2010), and subpart RR (75 FR 75060, December 1, 2010).  Subpart OO, which was promulgated as part of the 2009 final rule was also revised in 2010 (75 FR 79092, December 17, 2010). These requirements are contained in 40 CFR part 98.The rule does not require control of GHGs, rather it only requires that sources above certain threshold levels monitor and report emissions and other related data.

      Since promulgation of the rule, the Administrator has identified a number of technical issues that need to be corrected and specific portions of the Mandatory Greenhouse Gases Reporting Rule (hereafter referred to as "Part 98") that need to be clarified.  EPA is proposing to amend specific provisions in Part 98 to correct those technical and editorial errors that have been identified since promulgation and to propose clarifying or other amendments to certain provisions that have been the subject of questions from reporting entities.

      The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the extent of EPA's outreach efforts for Part 98 and to summarize the questions that have been raised during EPA's outreach activities that are being addressed by some of the proposed amendments.

2.0	SUMMARY OF EPA OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

	EPA has conducted an extensive outreach program for the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, including meetings with trade associations and individual businesses, on-line web-based seminars (webinars), and training sessions for EPA Regional Offices.  The following table lists those meetings and webinars that EPA has conducted to date, along with the month and year of the activity.  When available, the table also includes the approximate attendance for the meeting or webinar.

                     POST-SIGNATURE MEETINGS AND WEBINARS

Month and Year of Information Meeting or Webinar
Organization or Location (estimated attendance, if available)
Sept 2009
EPA Regional Offices Briefing (100)
Agriculture community teleconference (100)
State and Local Agencies teleconference (100)
Clean Energy Group Meeting (about 40)
State of Washington (2)
Business Council (73)
Call with Massachusetts on data system (2)
Overview webinar (293)
US Climate Action Partnership (20)
Overview webinar (284)
National Cooperative Refinery Association, and Van Arsdall & Associates
Oct 2009
Oil and Gas Compact (30)
Detailed webinar (326)
Portland Cement Assoc. (20)
CENSARA(50)
Overview webinar (217)
Applicability Tool Demonstration (84)
National Lime Assoc. (3)
Detailed webinar (252)
EEI (80)
NACAA (75)
Nitric Acid and Ammonia Assoc.(30)
TFI, AISI, SMA
Overview webinar (176)
Detailed webinar (208)
Air Program Managers and staff  (25)
Detailed webinar  (206)
Aluminum Industry
Steel Manufacturers Assoc.
Natural Gas Star
Overview webinar (133)
Carolina Air Pollution Control Assoc. (400)
Applicability Tool Demonstration (238)
Waste Management and Equipment Companies (25)
Ohio Manure Storage
Overview webinar (251)
Corporate Climate Regulation, Chicago, IL
Midwest Transportation & Air Quality Conference
Detailed webinar (333)
TCR/CAA (90)
Environmental Groups (10)
API
NOV 2009
Misc. Meetings with Industries (Refineries, Pulp and Paper, Cement) (100)
Northeast Gas Assoc.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. (2)
Detailed webinar (253)
TCR
Tribal Air Coordinators (50)
GHG data exchange discussion with New Mexico  (8)
API (20)
ABA (100)
Training for three regional cap and trade programs   -  DC (70)
State-EPA  Dialogue - DC  (80)
Treated Wood Council  (60)
Detailed webinar (172)
MAPI (Manufacturing Alliance) (15)
Environmental Services Corporation  (150)
Western Climate Initiative partner meeting  -  Santa Fe  (50)
Detailed webinar  (171)
Regional Climate sub-leads (40)
Air Products (5)
Waste Management and others  (10)
Detailed webinar (96)
DEC 2009
AWMA-EPA- RTP  (100)
Envirosys  (4)
Detailed webinar  (50)
ACC  (5)
National Grid
Detailed webinar (91)
Utilitpoint and Allegro (115)
CARB
NPRA and API
Golder and Associates
Anadarko (10)
Kinder Morgan
EEI
SWANA- LFGTE
Thermo Fisher Scientific
EPA Region 4 Training (100)
Waste Management and others (8)
Air Products (5)
The Fertilizer Institute
ADM  (8)
JAN 2010
Detailed webinar (83)
Air Products
National Emissions Inventory (30)
OECA- Regional offices (30)
National Grid
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (9)
Detailed webinar (100)
NRPA (300)
Feb 2010
Dedicated webinar for American Colleges and Universities  (220)
EPA Regional Inventory, Enforcement (23)
University Challenge
State webinar (200)
Webinar (182)
Iowa Landfill operators (125), Asphalt Paving Association of Iowa (70), and the Iowa Chapter of AMWA (60).
Mar 2010
Inst. Of Clean Air Companies (23)
SWANA (200)
EPA AFS Compliance Meeting
Second Nature (Colleges/Universities) Panel (20)
ECOS  (50)
PCA
Training- EPA Regions 5 and 7 (180)
Iowa Landfills (50)
April 2010
Arkansas Environmental Federation, Little Rock  (160)
NACAA Emissions and Modeling Committee (30)
Webinar (75)
Central TX AWMA (50)
Chicago Exchange Meeting
Exchange Network National Meeting (50)
EPA Air Division Directors (20)
National Assoc. of Clean Water Agencies
Pepsico-Frito Lay (150)
Pacific NW Legislative Energy Horizon Inst./AGA (35)
May 2010
LA, Boise, Portland Training (150, 100, 70, respectively)
ESC Users Group (150)
NCASI
EPRI CEMUG (150)
June 2010
Webinar: Q&A Session (54)
October 2010
e-GGRT Training (748)
e-GGRT Training (566)
November 2010
e-GGRT Training (521)
Webinar: Subpart FF (44)
General Stakeholder Call: Subparts RR and UU (88)
December 2010
EPA Regional Offices Briefing (20)
NACAA (50)
Webinar: Subpart I (71)
Webinar: Subpart W (481)
Webinar: Subparts RR and UU (77)
Webinar: e-GGRT and OTAQREG Training (386)
Webinar: Subpart W (130)
January 2011
Webinar: Subpart W (138)
Webinar: e-GGRT Training (512)
February 2011
Webinar: Overview (98)
EEI: Subpart RR
May 2011
Webinar: Overview
Webinar: Subpart OO
June 2011
Webinar: Overview

3.0	SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS FROM THE EPA HELPLINE AND TRADE ASSOCIATIONS BEING ADDRESSED BY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

      EPA has maintained a web-based helpline that allows individuals to submit questions about Part 98, including the additional subparts and rule amendments promulgated in 2010.  So far, EPA has resolved approximately 2,300 inquiries on Part 98.  Most of those inquiries have been resolved by providing further guidance to reporting entities through a web-based list of answers to frequently asked questions.  However, several additional questions would be resolved through the 2011 proposed amendments to Part 98.

      The EPA has also held meetings with several trade associations for industries affected by Part 98, and many questions were presented by those trade associations that would be resolved through the 2011 proposed amendments to Part 98.

      The following table summarizes the questions that have been raised from the EPA helpline and trade associations on various subparts of Part 98 which are being addressed by the proposed 2011 technical corrections, clarifying and other amendments.  Not all of the technical corrections and other amendments correspond directly to questions that were raised by reporters.  The need for some corrections and other amendments were identified as a result of internal EPA review stemming from reporter questions and may not be reflected in the following table. Any specific identifying information from the incoming questions has been removed from the table below.

Summary Of Questions And Issues From The EPA Helpline And Trade Associations Being Resolved By The Proposed Technical Corrections And Other Amendments
                                Technical Issue
                           Question Submitted to EPA
                   Type and approximate number of submittals
              Reference (Helpline or Trade Association materials)
                       Subpart A  -  General Provisions
Clarification under 98.5 regarding which communications can be submitted through the electronic greenhouse gas reporting tool and what communications can be submitted through the mail to the Director of the Climate Change Division.
We have received an inquiry from a state regarding where to send reports required under Part 98 as companies are sending reports to our state agency. The State will hold any reports received until they have further instructions. There is not a designated contact on our Point of Contact list for the region.
At least 4 individuals

                                   Helpline

To where and how is the Certificate of Representation sent? At 98.5 it says that it is to be submitted electronically. 98.9 only gives a mailing address.

                                   Helpline

Under §98.5 of the GHG Rule it says that the Certificate of Representation is to be submitted electronically.  Where and how is this to be done?  The Final GHG Report is also to be submitted electronically, will facilities be notified of the procedures to follow for submission of the required information?

                                   Helpline

What is the development status of EPA's electronic submission tool for the Part 98 greenhouse gas mandatory reporting rule (GHG MRR) [98.5]? When does EPA expect to have a version of reporting tool available for industry review? Will the tool include functionality to submit the "certification of representation" as described in 98.4(i)? Will the tool include functionality to submit the "notice of delegation" as described in 98.4(m)? Will the tool allow importing of data from spreadsheet templates or will it only accept data via manual population of web forms?

                                   Helpline

An EPA regional representative received the attached report from a facility in the region for the GHG Reporting Rule. They must have not reviewed 98.9. Please let me know if this e-mail box is the correct location to send this to.

                                   Helpline

Which address should be used to submit a letter of notification of cessation of operations in accordance with 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3)?

                                   Helpline
Amend the definition of "blowdown vent stack emissions" in 98.6 to add the phrase "emissions from emergency events are not included"
The blowdown vent stack source category is defined in 98.6 as venting due
to "maintenance and/or blowdown operations including compressor blowdown and emergency shut-down (ESD) system testing", all of which can be considered related to the process. Please confirm that venting due to
actual emergency shutdowns [not due to ESD system testing] is not included
in the blowdown vent stack source category.
At least 1 individual
                                   Helpline
Amend the definition of "supplier" in 98.6 to refer to those source categories listed in Table A-5 to subpart A of part 98.
The applicability of 40 CFR 98 is unclear. It appears as though a facility in the chemical industry, for example, might import to and export from their U.S. facilities products not included in the definition of supplier.  The products are not intended for combustion.

For example, a facility could produce plastic resins that are classified under NAIC code 325211. It may import materials that could be classified in the "Miscellaneous Products" category of the "Petrochemicals Feedstocks" grouping in Table MM-1. However, the sole purpose of importing these materials to their facility is to use them as raw materials in the production of plastic polymers. In the course of producing plastic polymers, a by-product may be created that can be used as raw material for manufacturing a product outside the U.S.

It appears that the definition of supplier is key for this facility. The definition of supplier in §98.6 is "Supplier means a producer, importer, or exporter of a fossil fuel or an industrial greenhouse gas." Materials these members import are intended for use as raw materials in production and materials that they export are intended for use as raw materials in other petrochemical based processes, not for combustion, and therefore these materials do not meet the definition of "Fossil Fuels", which is: "Fossil fuel means natural gas, petroleum, coal, or any form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such material, including for example, consumer products that are derived from such materials and are combusted." Emphasis added. Thus, we believe that such a facility does not meet the definition of supplier.

Subpart A at §98.2(a) establishes who must report; "The GHG reporting requirements...apply to...any supplier that meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(4)." Because this facility is not a supplier, as defined in the rule, we believe that it does not have to evaluate the requirements of paragraph (a)(4). It is the provisions of that paragraph §98.2(a)(4) that bring you to Subpart MM. Thus, Subpart MM does not apply.

At least 2 individuals
Helpline
Amend the definition of "supplier" in 98.6 to refer to those source categories listed in Table A-5 to subpart A of part 98.
The GHG Reporting Rule applies to facility owners and operators, and
suppliers. 40 CFR 98.2. The term "supplier" is defined at 40 CFR 98.6 as,
among other things, an importer or exporter of "fossil fuel." EPA
discussed the definitions of supplier and fossil fuel in an August 11,
2010 rule amendment proposal, and proposed to amend the definition of
fossil fuel in Section 98.6 to clarify that it applies to substances
derived from natural gas, petroleum or coal "for the purpose of creating
useful heat." EPA adopted this change in a final rule amendment, an
advance publication copy of which EPA has posted to its website.

EPA's discussion in the proposed rule amendment indicated that the change
to the fossil fuel definition would ensure that fossil fuel is defined
clearly to refer to materials produced for the purpose of creating useful
heat. 75 Fed. Reg. 48744, 48754 (August 11, 2010). When EPA issued the
final rule change, it also indicated in the preamble that it did not
intend to have any impact on the coverage of greenhouse gases under the
GHG reporting program. Prepublication Copy, p. 69.

Given that (i) EPA has stated that the term "fossil fuel" is intended to
be construed as natural gas, petroleum, coal, or substances derived from
these products, for the purpose of creating useful heat, (ii) 40 CFR 98.2
states that Part 98 is applicable to owners and operators of certain
facilities and to suppliers, (iii) the term "supplier" is defined as a
producer, importer, or exporter of a fossil fuel or an industrial
greenhouse gas, and (iv) EPA seems to indicate that its definitional
change is not intended to alter the original meaning of the rule, is it
accurate to conclude that the reporting rule sections applicable to
suppliers are intended to apply only to those who produce, import or
export natural gas, petroleum, coal, or substances derived from these
products, for the purpose of creating useful heat? Stated another way,
would a company that imports or exports chemicals for use in a
manufacturing process (e.g., to manufacture another chemical) and not for
use as a heat or energy source not be considered to be a "supplier" and
therefore not be subject to Subpart MM?
At least 2 individuals
Helpline
Amend 40 CFR 98.2(d) and (e) to clarify that that the applicability determination for importers should be assessed separately from the applicability determination for exporters
I have two questions regarding import/export that I am sure have been answered many times. I have multiple manufacturing facilities under the same corporate owner. Each facility may import or export HFC containing equipment and closed cell foam....
3. If only the exporting threshold is exceeded are we still required to report imports or do you only report for the activity for which the threshold is exceeded?
At least 4 individuals
Helpline

In the reporting applicability thresholds in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(4)(ii) for Subpart MM, are the reporting categories for refineries, importers greater than 25,000 tonnes CO2e/yr, and exporters greater than 25,000 tonnes CO2e/yr independent of each other?

Helpline

If only the exporting threshold is exceeded are we still required to report imports or do you only report for the activity for which the threshold is exceeded?

Helpline

If a facility triggers the 25,000 threshold for exports, do they also need to report imports even though imports have not exceeded the 25,000 threshold?

Helpline
Clarifying Table A-5 to state that coverage and the applicability determination for importers and exporters under subpart MM includes suppliers of natural gas liquids.

Also related to amending the definition of "supplier" in 98.6 to refer to those source categories listed in Table A-5 to subpart A of part 98.

Does 40 CFR 98, Subpart MM, apply to petroleum products being imported/exported to/from chemical plants? ExxonMobil has several chemical plants that import/export Petrochemical Feedstocks and/or Natural Gas Liquids (as listed in Table MM-1) to support our chemical manufacturing processes. However, chemical plants do not meet the definition of "Supplier", as found in §98.6:

Supplier means a producer, importer, or exporter of a fossil fuel or an industrial greenhouse gas. Fossil fuel means natural gas, petroleum, coal, or any form of solid,liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such material, including for example, consumer products that are derived from such materials and are combusted. Industrial greenhouse gases means nitrous oxide or any fluorinated greenhouse gas.

The petrochemical feedstocks and/or natural gas liquids being imported/exported by ExxonMobil chemical plants are not "Fossil fuels" (as defined above) because they are not used for combustion, nor are they Industrial greenhouse gases. Therefore, it appears that chemical plants do not meet the definition of Supplier and, consequently, Subpart MM should not apply to these entities. Please clarify EPA's intent regarding applicability of Subpart MM to chemical plants.
At least 1 individual
Helpline
Amend the definition of "United States parent company(s)" in 40 CFR 98.6 to replace the term "reporting entity" with the term "facility or supplier."
Section 98.3(c)(11) requires reporting of information on the U.S. parent company of the "reporting entity." Part 98 does not define "reporting entity." Section § 98.3 states that the reporting requirements apply to the "owners and operators of any facility" that meets the applicability provisions of that section. Similarly, Subparts C and D state that "you" must report and § 98.2 defines "you" as "an owner or operator" subject to Part 98. However, in the proposed and final rules on parent company reporting, EPA describes the rule as requiring reporting by "facilities" and "suppliers" and refers to the "reporting entity" as the "facility or supplier," and not as the "owner and operator" of the facility or supplier. See, e.g., 75 Fed. Reg. at 18457; 75 Fed. Reg. at 57676. As a result, it appears that EPA intends the reporting of parent company information under § 98.3(c)(11) to be limited to the owner of the facility. Please confirm that the rule does not require, and the reporting format (which has not been released) will not require, reporting of parent company information on the "operator" of a facility where the operator is not also the owner. If EPA intends reporting of parent company information on both, please explain where that is reflected in the proposed and final parent company rule and how EPA will ensure that reporting will not result in double-counting of reported GHGs at the parent company level.
At least 1 individual
Helpline
Clarify threshold for electrical transmission and distribution equipment use in Table A-3.
Our site contains electrical transmission and distribution equipment that distributes power throughout the site. Within in this equipment are several sealed circuit breakers, containing a total of 1,740 pounds of SF6.

Originally we had determined that we did not meet the definition of a "facility" in relation to an electrical power system defined in §98.308. Recently it came to our attention that we do meet the definition of a "facility" and as a result meet the definition of the "electrical transmission and distribution use" source category (subpart DD). Since the "electrical transmission and distribution use" source category is a source listed on table A-3 of 40 CFR 98, subpart A, our site would automatically be subject to reporting emissions from 2011.

Since our electrical transmission and distribution equipment contains only  "sealed" circuit breakers, containing a total of 1,740 pounds of SF6, the site would be under the 17,820 pound threshold for having to report emissions from the "electrical transmission and distribution" source category. While the site would not have to report emissions from this source category we would still be subject to reporting due to having a source listed on the "all-in" table (table A-3). The only source category that would be reported then would be the "General Stationary Combustion Sources" source category with emissions of approximately 9k metric tons (MT) CO2e.

With emissions of approximately 9k MT of CO2e, we feel that we are not the "big-hitter" facility that was intended to be subject to this reporting requirement. We believe that the "electrical transmission and distribution use" source category as listed on table A-3 should include the 17,820 pound threshold just as the "municipal solid waste landfills" source category, as listed on table A-3, is only an "all-in" source if the emissions are 25k MT CO2e.
At least 2 individuals
Helpline

I have a question about how EPA interprets the phrase in 98.2(a) that states: "the annual GHG report must cover stationary fuel combustion sources (subpart C of this part), miscellaneous use of carbonates (subpart U of this part), and all applicable source categories listed in Table A3 and Table A4 of this subpart." I assume that this phrase means that I must evaluate each category to see if I qualify and, if so, must report for that category. However, the language raises the following questions:
1) does the specific mention of "carbonates" mean that I must report CO2e from carbonates even if I don't qualify for subpart U?
2) the calculation methodology in 98.2(b) states I must consider fluorinated gases. If I am in a category that does not consider these gases, do I need to consider them as a result of 98.2? For example, if I am a general industrial source, but have a transformer that could leak SF6, must I include SF6 emissions even though I don't meet the requirements of an electrical distribution system?

Helpline
                    Subpart W  -  Petroleum and Natural Gas
Definition of gas well

In the published version of Subpart W, you define gas wells in 98.238 as follows: "Gas well means a well completed for production of natural gas from one or more gas zones or reservoirs.  Such wells contain no completions for the production of crude oil." This definition appears to exclude any gas-producing well that also was completed to produce any amount of crude oil. We assume, therefore, that any well that produces crude oil, no matter whether it produces gas to sales, is excluded from reporting under the following source categories in Subpart W:  (5) Gas well venting during well completions without hydraulic fracturing.  (6) Gas well venting during well completions with hydraulic fracturing.  (7) Gas well venting during well workovers without hydraulic fracturing.  (8) Gas well venting during well workovers with hydraulic fracturing. Please confirm that our interpretation is correct.  We assume that gas wells that also produce hydrocarbon condensate are INCLUDED in these categories (since condensate is not crude oil). But oil wells that produce gas are excluded.
At least 4 individuals
Helpline

For 98.232(c), Onshore Production, source categories (5)-(8): Do these 4 source categories ONLY pertain to natural gas wells, OR to both oil and gas wells?  If they only pertain to gas wells, please explain the definition of a "Gas Well." In section 98.238, the Rule defines a "Gas Well" as "a well completed for production of natural gas from one or more gas zones or reservoirs. Such wells contain no completions for the production of crude oil." This definition is unclear - does this mean the gas well has to produce dry gas only? What if it produces condensate or light oils with the gas - can this be differentiated from crude oil in the Rule's definition?

Helpline

Sections 98.233(g) and 98.233(h) require that "gas well" venting during completions and workovers from hydraulic fraction and "gas well" venting during completions and workovers without hydraulic fraction, respectively, be estimated. Section 98.238 provides the following definition for "gas well": means a well completed for production of natural gas from one or more gas zones or reservoirs. Such wells contain no completions for the production of crude oil. This definition appears to exclude "oil wells" from reporting under Sections 98.238(g) and (h).  Can EPA confirm then, that crude oil producing wells are not required to report venting emissions associated with well completions and workovers (with or without hydraulic fracturing) and that EPA's intent was to only have wells meeting the provided definition of "gas well" report these vented emissions?

Helpline

For 40 CFR 98 Subpart W, is there any guidance on how to classify a well as a "gas well" and as an "oil well" other than the definitions in 40 CFR 98.237?  Can we use the gas-to-oil ratio (GOR) of the well to classify the well as a "gas well" or as an "oil well"? Some operators and petroleum engineers use the following criteria for oil versus gas wells: For wells with a GOR of <10,000 standard cubic feet per barrel, the well is classified as an oil well. For wells with a GOR of >10,000 standard cubic feet per barrel, the well is classified as an gas well.

Helpline
Clarifying the 25 MMscf throughput threshold for the onshore natural gas processing industry segment to state that the throughput threshold is based on an annual average throughput.
As I interpret the recently finalized Subpart W, gas processing facilities that do not process more than 25 mmScf/day are not subject to reporting under Subpart W regardless of whether they are subject to reporting under Subpart C. Can you please provide more guidance on how this threshold should be calculated? Is it an average daily throughput based on the entire reporting year?
At least 5 individuals
Helpline

Section 98.230(a)(3)(ii) states that "All processing facilities that do not fractionate with throughput of 25 MMscfd per day or greater." are included in the source category.  Please specify the basis for the 25 MMscf per day throughput - is this based on annual average daily flow or max design capacity?

Helpline

25 mmscf/day is design capacity for a processing plant or the actual in the following definition in 98.230(a)(3):

Onshore natural gas processing. Natural gas processing separates and recovers natural gas liquids (NGLs) and/ or other non-methane gases and liquids from a stream of produced natural gas using equipment performing one or more of the following processes: oil and condensate removal, water removal, separation of natural gas liquids, sulfur and carbon dioxide removal, fractionation of NGLs, or other processes, and also the capture of CO2 separated from natural gas streams. This segment also includes all residue gas compression equipment owned or operated by the natural gas processing facility, whether inside or outside the processing facility fence. This source category does not include reporting of emissions from gathering lines and boosting stations. This source category includes:
(i) All processing facilities that fractionate.
(ii) All processing facilities that do not fractionate with throughput of 25 MMscf per day or greater

Per this definition, we understand that if a booster processes 25 or more mmscf/day gas and generates condensate or produced water, it is considered Natural gas processing per this quoted definition. Please verify.

Helpline

98.230(3)  -  Onshore natural gas processing. The regulation specifies that all processing facilities that do not fractionate but have a throughput of 25MMSCF/day or greater is required to report. Our clients expect that this would be based on actual annual average since this is an annual report of actual emissions. Please confirm.

Helpline
Clarifying the throughput threshold for glycol dehydrators to state that the throughput threshold is based on an annual average throughput.
98.233(e)  -  Dehydrator vents. The regulation requires producers and processors to identify which dehydrators have a throughput less than 0.4 MMscf/day. Our clients expect that this would be based on actual annual average since this is an annual report of actual emissions. Please confirm.
At least 2 individuals
Helpline

How should the daily throughput be determined for dehydrators in 98.233(e) to compare to the threshold of 0.4 MMscf/day? Is it based on design capacity, maximum daily throughput, or annual average actual daily throughput? Is the throughput re-evaluated annually?

Reporting requirements for blowdown vent stacks
Section 98.233(i)(3) states that one should "calculate the total annual
venting emissions for each equipment type using Equation W-14 of this section." The parameter Vv is defined as the total volume of blowdown equipment chambers (including pipelines, compressors and vessels) between isolation valves in cubic feet, therefore the equation calculates the emissions for all the equipment between isolation valves which could include different types of equipment. However, the reporting section 98.236(c)(7)(i) states that emissions should be reported by individual equipment type. How should a facility report the emissions if there is more than one type of equipment between isolation valves for Equation W-14?
At least 1 individual
Helpline
Clarifying the throughput threshold for onshore production storage tanks  to state that the throughput threshold is based on an annual average throughput.
98.233(j)  -  Onshore production storage tanks. The regulation stipulates that calculation methodologies for onshore production storage tanks depends on whether the separator has a throughput greater than or equal to 10 barrels per day. Our clients expect that this would be based on actual annual average since this is an annual report of actual emissions. Please confirm.
At least 3 individuals
Helpline

The various methodologies for onshore production storage tanks in 98.233(j) are based on whether the daily oil throughput is greater than or less than 10 barrels/day.  How should the daily oil throughput be calculated?  Is it the annual throughput divided by the number of days that the well produced during the year?  Or the annual throughput divided by the number of days in the calendar year (i.e, 365 or 366)?  Or some other method?

Helpline

How should the daily oil throughput be determined for onshore production storage tanks in 98.233(j) to compare to the threshold of 10 barrels/day? Is it based on design capacity, maximum daily throughput, or annual average actual daily throughput? Is the throughput re-evaluated annually?

Clarify that N2O , CH4, and CO2 must be reported under the natural gas processing industry segment in 98.232(d) .

I wanted to confirm that for flares at onshore natural gas production facilities, CO2, CH4 and N2O should be reported; while at onshore natural gas processing facilities, only CO2 and CH4 should be reported. Is this correct?
At least 1 individual
Helpline
Clarify the definition of GHGi in Equation W-1

For pneumatic devices, how and at what frequency should GHGi in Equation W-1 be determined for onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities?  Note that the equation does not refer to 98.233(u), so it is not clear how GHGi should be determined and at what frequency.
For pneumatic devices at facilities specified in 98.230(a)(3) through (a)(8),  Equation W-1 says GHGi equals 1, but it is not clear which species you are referring to.  Do you mean GHGi equals 1 mole fraction of CH4?  Do you mean GHG equals 1 mole fraction of CO2?  Am I supposed to
assume it equals 1 mole fraction of CH4 and CO2?  Please clarify exactly which GHG species you are referring to in Equation W-1.
At least 5 individuals
Helpline

Equation W-1, legend entry for GHGi includes reference to facilities listed in 98.230(a)(3) through (a)(8). However, reporting for this source (pneumatic device venting) is required only for onshore production (which is specifically mentioned earlier in this legend item), and NG transmission compression and underground NG storage, which are 98.230(a)(4) and (a)(5) respectively. I recommend changing this reference in the legend to reference only (a)(4) and (a)(5), to avoid confusion.

Regarding Equation W-1:

In legend,
GHGi = For onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities, concentration of GHG i, CH4 or CO2, in produced natural gas; for facilities listed in §98.230(a)(3) through(a)(8), GHGi equals 1.  Why include 98.230(a)(3) through (a)(8), given that, of these segments, reporting of emissions from pneumatic device venting is required only for NG transmission compression [98.230(a)(4)] and underground NG storage [98.230(a)(5)], in addition to onshore production facilities which are specified in first phrase.

For pneumatic devices, how and at what frequency should GHGi in Equation W-1 be determined? Similarly for Equation W-31. Note, these equations do not refer to 98.233(u).

Helpline

In 98.233(a), Eq W-1 has the parameter: "GHGi = For onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities, concentration of GHG i, CH4 or CO2, in produced natural gas; for facilities listed in §98.230(a)(3) through (a)(8), GHGi equals 1." However, for facilities listed in 98.230(a)(3) through (a)(8), it is not realistic or reasonable for GHGi to equal 1 for both CH4 and CO2. Did EPA intend to provide a GHGi for both CH4 and CO2? For example, in 98.233(q), Eq W-30 has: "GHGi = For onshore natural gas processing facilities, concentration of GHGi, CH4 or CO2, in the total hydrocarbon of the feed natural gas; for other facilities listed in 98.230(a)(4) through (a)(8), GHGi equals 1 for CH4 and 1.1 x 10-2 for CO2." OR, did EPA intend that only CH4 emissions should be calculated for natural gas pneumatic device venting for facilities listed in 98.230(a)(3) through (a)(8)?

Helpline
Clarify the definition of GHGi in Equation W-2 to include a reference to paragraph 98.233(u)(2)(i)

For natural gas driven pneumatic pumps, how and at what frequency should GHGi in Equation W-2 be determined for onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities?  Note that the equation does not refer to 98.233(u), so it is not clear how GHGi should be determined and at what frequency.
At least 1 individual
Helpline
Amend 98.233(d) to clarify calculation methods for acid gas removal vents.

Assume that a facility which receives and fractionates a natural gas liquids stream is subject to Subpart W, and the facility has an acid gas removal unit but cannot comply with Methodology #1 or #2 for acid gas removal units.  This facility does not have a continuous gas analyzer on the gas stream out of the AGR unit and does not take quarterly samples of the gas stream out of the AGR unit.  Therefore, the facility would prefer to use 98.233(d)(8)(iii) to determine the volume fraction of CO2 content in the gas stream out of the AGR unit.  However, what would be the sales line quality specification for CO2 in "natural gas" for this facility, as the facility does not process or sell a natural gas stream?  Would this be the CO2 specification for the outlet gas stream for the AGR unit?
At least 1 individual
Helpline
Clarification of 98.233(e) for the calculation of emissions from dehydrator vents.

Subpart W 98.233(e)(1)(xi)(A) (related to dehydrator wet natural gas sampling) reads, "Use the wet natural gas composition as defined in paragraph (u)(2)(i) of this section."  Is it correct that this is meant to only reference (u)(2)(i) which is only applicable to Onshore Petroleum and natural Gas Production Facilities?  Or, is it supposed to reference all of (u)(2), which would include other source categories as well ?

At least 1 individual
Helpline
Amend 98.233(e)(1) to clarify that 0.4 mscf/day throughput threshold is determined using annual average daily throughput.
For emissions under §98.233(e)(1), emissions must be calculated from dehydrator vents with throughput greater than or equal to 0.4 million standard cubic feet per day. Is this throughput specific to vent throughput or dehydrator throughput?
At least 2 individuals
Helpline

The selection of the two methodologies for dehydrator vents in 98.233(e) is based on whether the daily throughput is greater than or less than 0.4 MMscf/day.  How should the daily throughput be calculated?  Is it the annual throughput divided by the number of days that the dehydrator operated?  Or the annual throughput divided by the number of days in the calendar year (i.e, 365 or 366)?  Or some other method?

Helpline
Amend 98.233(f) and Equation W-8 to state that calculation methodology 2 is to be used to calculate the total emissions for well venting for liquids unloading.

Amend Equation W-9
There appear to be several issues with equations W-8 and W-9.

The equations include a pressure correction, but not a temperature
correction The emission term that results from the equations is labeled as actual cubic feet, but the conversions really result in standard cubic feet due to the pressure correction The equations then reference equation W-33 which converts from actual to standard conditions, essentially double correcting for pressure. The units in the second part of the equations are not clear. If HR is an annual value (sales flow rate/hr per year), than subtracting 1 hour or 30 minutes from annual hours is meaningless. If HR is on an event basis or daily basis, then the equations are missing a summation.
At least 1 individual
Helpline
Amend Equation W-13 to correct parameter definitions.
Equation W-10 is mentioned under Completions and Workovers with hydraulic fracturing, but the equation itself only mentions completions. Equation W-13, under completions and workovers without fracturing, some equation terms reference walkovers and others reference completions. Please clarify the terms associated with these equations in their use for both workovers and completions.
At least 1 individual
Helpline

The emission factor applied in Equation W-13 is already on a CH4 basis, but the rule treats the output from Equation W-13 as if it is on a total gas basis. Equation W-13 is also expressed at actual conditions, but the emission factor applied is based on standard conditions of 60 °F and 14.7 psia.
At least 1 individual
Helpline
Clarify that the parameter "Vv" in Equation W-14 is the actual physical volume of the blowdown equipment.

The calculation methodology for blowdown vent stacks indicates that natural gas volumetric emissions at standard conditions (calculated using Eq. W-14) are to be converted to GHG mass emissions using the methodology in 98.233(v). Unless the blowdown stream was a pure CH4 or CO2 stream,
natural gas volumetric emissions cannot be converted directly to GHG mass emissions. Before volumetric natural gas emissions can be converted to GHG mass emissions, the volumetric natural gas emissions must first be converted to GHG volumetric emissions. Please confirm that emissions for
blowdown vent stacks should be calculated using the following approach: volumetric natural gas emissions at standard conditions [98.233(i), Eq. W-14], convert to GHG volumetric emissions (CH4 and CO2) at standard conditions [98.233(u), Eq. W-35], convert to GHG mass emissions at
standard conditions [98.233(v), Eq. W-36].
At least 2 individuals
Helpline

The preamble to Subpart W discusses that total physical volumes of 50 cubic feet or less are exempt from reporting. However, the regulation states that total volume of 50 standard cubic feet or less are exempt from reporting. Standard cubic feet may differ greatly from physical cubic feet.

Amendments to parameter "En" and removal of parameter "Et" of Equation W-16

I am not understanding Equation W-16 (98.233(j)(8)) that is to be used when a dump valve on a separator fails to close. The confusion involves En and Et. The first part of the equation is to calculate emissions when the dump valve is stuck open and includes a correction factor (5.37 for gas condensate production) that is multiplied by En and the hours the valve was stuck open. En is supposed to tank emissions during Tn, which is when the valve is stuck open. Methodologies 1,2, or 5 does not give you the emissions when the valve is stuck open - it gives an emission estimate off the oil tank under normal operations. What is the correction factor for if En is supposed to be the emission rate during the malfunctioning valve? It would make more sense to me if En and Et were the same - whatever is calculated in Methodologies 1 - 5 converted to a scf per hour. Then the correction factor would be used to increase the emissions (by 5.37 times) during the hours that the valve was malfunctioning. Unless En and Et are the same, I don't see how the EPA's equation will work. ow do you determine En? How is it different from Et? How do you determine Et?
At least 1 individual
Helpline
Clarify 98.233(k)(4)(ii)  to state that the flare stack calculations are to be used for emissions that are sent to a flare and not from a flare.
Under §98.232(e), emissions from flares are not a required source for calculation and reporting. Under section §98.233(o)(9), however, emissions from flares associated with centrifugal compressors must be reported. There are multiple cases throughout Subpart W where these confusions exist (i.e. section §98.233(k)(4), which is specific to the transmission compression industry segment). Please clarify which section of the rule is the correct guiding action.
At least 1 individual
Helpline
Clarifying the density parameter in Equation W-36
Section 98.233(v) GHG mass emissions Eq. W 36 in Subpart W, uses a density of 0.0538 kg/ft[3] for CO2 and 0.0196 kg/ft[3] for CH4 at 68°F. It uses 0.0530 kg/ft[3] for CO2 and 0.0193 kg/ft[3] for CH4 at 60°F. Are these values correct, I would expect the gas to be denser at a lower temperature?

At least 1 individual
Helpline
Amend 98.233(z) for determining combustion emissions from both the onshore petroleum and natural gas production and natural gas distribution industry segments.
98.233(z) directs onshore petroleum and natural gas production and natural gas distribution to calculate CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from combustion sources. Calculation approaches are clearly defined for CO2 and N2O, but are not clearly defined for CH4. 98.233(z)(1) indicates that if the fuel combusted is listed in Table C-1 (or is a blend of fuels in Table C-1) then the Tier 1 calculation methodology in Subpart C must be used.  Please confirm that the use of the Tier 1 approach applies to the calculation of both CO2 and CH4 emissions. Please also indicate how CH4 emissions are to be calculated for sources that combust field or process vent gas.
At least 3 individuals
Helpline

98.233(z) says to use Eq. W-39 to calculate "GHG emissions". But doesn't that equation yield only CO2 emissions? How are CH4 emissions to be calculated? Also, the explanation of the HHV parameter in Eq. W-40 (for calculating N2O emissions) refers to "paragraphs (z)(8)(i), (z)(8)(ii), or(z)(8)(iii)". I believe the references should be to (z)(6) instead of
(z)(8) as there is no (z)(8).

Helpline

Reporters are required to estimate CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from combustion sources under paragraph (z) of Subpart W. If a reporter combusts a common fuel, emissions of CO2 and CH4 are estimated using Tier 1 in Subpart C while N2O emissions are estimated using equation W-40. If a reporter combusts a solid or liquid fuel not listed in Table C-1, emissions should be estimated using Tier 2 of Subpart C. Reporters that combust field gas or process vent gas (neither listed in Table C-1) estimate emissions of CO2 using equation W-39 and emission of N2O using equation W-40. How should CH4 emissions be estimated? Equation W-39 assumes all CH4 is converted to CO2 during combustion.

Helpline
Revised Equation W-40 to account for an incorrect exponent.

Equation W-40: In the equation, the conversion factor from kg to metric tons is given as 1 x 10[3]; the conversion factor should be 1 x 10[-3], as given in the legend.
At least 3 individuals
Helpline

Equation W-40 has a factor (1 x 10[3]) that should be 1 x 10[-3]).

Helpline

Regarding Equation W-40:

Equation is given as: N2O = (1 x 10[3]) x Fuel x HHV x EF (Eq. W-40)
Legend includes:

EF = Use 1.0 x 10[-4] kg N2O/mmBtu.

1 x 10[-3] = Conversion factor from kilograms to metric tons.

HHV = High heat value of the fuel from paragraphs (z)(8)(i), (z)(8)(ii) or (z)(8)(iii) of this section (units must be consistent with Fuel).

Q: Shouldn't the factor in the equation include the -3 exponent instead of +3, for correct conversion from kg to metric tons?

Q: Paragraphs referenced by HHV legend do not exist; reference should probably be to (z)(6) rather than (z)(8).

Helpline
Insert missing variables in Equation W-41.
Equation W-41: The legend is missing the terms "a" and "b".

At least 2 individuals
Helpline

Regarding Equation W-41:  Legend is missing terms "a" and "b".

Helpline
Revise emission factors for high bleed, low bleed, and intermittent bleed pneumatic devices on a total hydrocarbon basis.
The derivation provided in the TSD for the high bleed, low bleed, and intermittent bleed pneumatic device emission factors provided in Table W-1a introduces an error. The derivation incorrectly divides by the CH4 weight fraction (e.g. D=0.788).
At least 1
individual
                                   Helpline
                     Subpart FF  -  Underground Coal Mines
Amending Table A-3 to revise applicability to mines liberating 36,500,000 acf of CH4 or more per year from their ventilation systems
My question concerns interpretation of the applicability of reporting for underground coal mines under Subpart FF. The July 12, 2010 rule states active mines that are monitored quarterly by MSHA must report, whereas all other facilities have a 25,000 metric ton threshold. The May 26, 2010 (revised June 29, 2010) Technical Support Document for Underground Coal Mining states that only 19% of mines will need to report with emissions estimated to be about 15,000 metric tons CO2e or more.  Are all active mines that have MSHA quarterly monitoring (or more frequent) required to report or only those with emissions of 15,000 metric tons or more?

At least 2 individuals
Helpline

In 40 CFR part 98, subpart FF the term(s)"MSHA threshold" appears but it is not elsewhere defined. Could you please cite a reference or provide me with a definition of that term.

Helpline
Placement and timing of sampling for moisture content

If we are taking dry samples, how are we supposed to get moisture content readings from dry samples?  Is there a sampling method or certain type of equipment that we use to get these readings/values?  The rule states that moisture content readings should be taken quarterly for vent systems and weekly for degas systems.
At least 2 individuals
Helpline

What apparatuses have been approved to record methane, moisture content, air flow, barometric pressure, and temperature to satisfy 40 CFR Part 98?

Helpline
Clarification of how to measure for moisture content and amendment of Equations FF-1 and FF-3
One of the requirements for the testing of both ventilation air and degas system samples is moisture content in %.  Is this the atmospheric moisture content or the moisture content of the gas sample?
At least 3 individuals
Helpline

If we are taking dry samples, how are we supposed to get moisture content readings from dry samples?  Is there a sampling method or certain type of equipment that we use to get these readings/values?  The rule states that moisture content readings should be taken quarterly for vent systems and weekly for degas systems.

Helpline

Can you please share the appropriate methodology and equipment for collecting quarterly grab samples for methane, flow, temperature, and pressure in ventilation shafts of underground mines?

Helpline
Use of MSHA data to calculate emissions

Two mines have monitored for methane to satisfy quarterly MSHA requirements. MSHA lab analyses of bag samples have consistently shown zero methane concentration (0.000 %) in the mine ventilation air. I believe air flow rates at the ventilation air intake and exhaust points are currently estimated from fan performance curves.  My question: do these mines need to invest in more precise air flow measurement technology as long as they continue to show zero methane, or can they simply use the data from their MSHA reports to complete the GHG emissions report?
At least 3 individuals
Helpline

Can you please share the appropriate methodology and equipment for collecting quarterly grab samples for methane, flow, temperature, and pressure in ventilation shafts of underground mines? I have looked at the reference section of the regulations but it is not clear to me which methods are the appropriate methods to use.  It is my understanding that MSHA does not monitor pressure and their instrumentation does not correct for pressure.

Helpline

Under Subpart FF, underground coal mines must report emissions from ventilation systems. Section 98.324(b)(2) indicates that the data could be obtained from "the quarterly (or more frequent) testing performed by MSHA." The concern is that MSHA has never reported temperature and pressure data in the past, and these are required to calculate emissions in equation FF-1. Have arrangements been made for MSHA to collect this REQUIRED data? If not, what default values can the mines use? Or, if not, will the mines be required to supplement the MSHA reported data by taking their own temperature and pressure readings in each quarter and at all of the same locations where MSHA samples?

Helpline
Clarification of monitoring equipment required
What apparatuses have been approved to record methane, moisture content, air flow, barometric pressure, and temperature to satisfy 40 CFR Part 98?
At least 2 individuals
Helpline

Can you please share the appropriate methodology and equipment for collecting quarterly grab samples for methane, flow, temperature, and pressure in ventilation shafts of underground mines? I have looked at the reference section of the regulations but it is not clear to me which methods are the appropriate methods to use.  It is my understanding that MSHA does not monitor pressure and their instrumentation does not correct for pressure.

Helpline
                 Subpart II -  Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Replace the term "landfill gas" with "biogas" in 98.352(d)
In the final rule published on July 12, 2010, in paragraph 98.352(d) of Subpart II, Industrial Wastewater Treatment, reference is made to landfill gas destruction device. I believe this is an error since it has no relation to the Subpart.

At least 1 individual
Helpline
Error in Equation II-6
We have identified an error in Equation II-6 of Subpart II (industrial wastewater treatment) for calculating methane emissions from a wastewater treatment operation where some of the generated methane is captured and destroyed.

The equation will return erroneously high results for methane emissions in many scenarios.  The correct form of the equation is:
CH4En = CH4Ln + Rn (1− [ (DE1 ∗ fDest_1 )+ (DE2 ∗ fDest_2)])
At least 2 individuals

Helpline

Eq. II-6 in Subpart II for industrial wastewater treatment appears to have an error. Since Rn is the total methane recovered and that value is the multiplier for each destruction device, it ends up double counting
emissions since the primary and back-up device emissions are added.  Essentially the total methane Rn is first multiplied by the efficiency of the first device and then you take the entire methane value again and multiply it by the back-up device efficiency and then add the two values. The equation results in more methane being emitted than is recovered.

                   Subpart TT  -  Industrial Waste Landfills
Determining waste-specific DOC values for closed landfills
The preamble for Industrial waste landfills indicates EPA's desire to not require reporting for landfills that only received inert or inorganic waste. 98.460(c)(2) includes a list of specific wastes that are considered inert, along with other criteria in 98.460(c)(2)(xii)  -  volatile solids concentration of less than 0.5%. It seems that per 98.464 that in order to claim the waste is less than 0.5% volatile solids that sampling and testing are required. Our company has some landfills that only accepted inert wastes, such as waste from magnesium metal production, and magnesium hydrate. The facilities have since shutdown and the landfills are closed, so obtaining a sample cannot be done. These wastes contain no carbon. Is it possible to use process knowledge to determine that a material is inert or has a volatile solids content of less than 0.5%? Solid waste regulations allow for the use of process knowledge during waste characterization. If not, this will require extensive effort to over report emissions that we know do not exist. Since the material cannot be sampled, the values in Table TT-1 for "other industrial waste" would need to be used, resulting in a waste that does not contain carbon reporting the same emissions as waste from the pulp and paper industry.
At least 1 individual
Helpline
Delete Equation TT-7 and amend Equation TT-8 for determining volatile solids and DOC values
The second error is in regard to the method presented for calculating a waste-specific DOCx value for waste streams using Equation TT-8 in Section 98.364(b)(4). The key to Equation 8 states that the result of the calculation (DOCx) is "degradable organic content of waste stream in Year X (weight fraction, wet basis)." However, the equation as provided would return a DOCx value on a dry basis.
At least 1 individual
Helpline
In 40 CFR 98.463(a)(2), revise "January 1, 1980" to be "January 1, 1960"
Based on the preamble text and the wording of § 98.463(a)(2), it would appear that EPA requires calculation and reporting of GHG only from waste
placed in landfills on or after January 1, 1980. However, definitions for terms in Equations TT-2 and TT-4 refer to calendar year 1960, not 1980, as
the earliest start date for landfill operation. Is the date 1960 that appears at Equations TT-1 and TT-4 a typographical error that should be 1980?
At least 11 individuals
Helpline

The text of Subpart TT indicates that the waste quantities to be used in the calculation of annual (methane) greenhouse gas are those that have been deposited in the landfill beginning on January 1, 1980. While the definition
for Start Year of equations TT-1 and TT-4 indicates that the owner or operator is to use 1960 as the start year. Which is correct??

Helpline

Are facilities required to calculate emissions beginning in 1960 or 1980? Eq. TT-1 specifies that emission calculations are to begin in 1960 (or the opening year of the landfill if later), but 40 CFR 98.463(a)(2) specifies that annual waste quantities are to be determined beginning in 1980 (or the year the landfill first accepted waste).

Helpline

Clarify that only descriptions of waste streams disposed of in the landfill and used in Equation TT-1 must be reported
What is the reporting threshold for GHG emissions for Industrial Landfills under Subpart TT (since they do not fall under HH)"?  What if they accept 60% ash at the landfills?  Do we calculate only 40% of the emissions and report that number?
At least 1 individual
Helpline

Definition of "construction and demolition waste landfill"
Under Subpart TT  Industrial Waste Landfills, would a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill that accepts site clearance waste in addition to construction waste be exempt under 98.460(c)(1)? In the recent Oct 28, 2010 amendment to subpart HH for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, references to "dedicated C&D landfills" were removed and a new definition was added for "C&D waste landfill" that clearly references site clearance waste as a typical C&D waste. Did EPA intend for site clearance waste to be a typical waste received by dedicated C&D landfills under subpart TT?
At least 1 individual
Helpline
Definition of "design capacity" in 98.468
What is the definition of "design capacity"?  If the design capacity is greater than 300,000 metric tons (MT), but the total facility is below 25,000 MT of CO2e per year (taking into account the inert material in the landfill), do they report?
At least 2 individuals

Helpline

How is design capacity calculated when dealing with landfills that are not engineered landfills with a defined capacity? Is there some way to eliminate small landfills without going through an involved calculation process? The rule does not address this issue.

Helpline
Amend Table TT-1 - revise the description of "Inert Waste"
In Table TT-1 of Subpart TT (Default DOC and Decay Rate Values for Industrial Waste Landfills), it refers to inert waste listed in section 98.460(b)(3). However, there is no (3) under 98.460(b). Should it read 98.460(c)(2)?
At least 2 individuals
Helpline

In Table TT-1 it lists "Inert Waste [i.e., wastes listed in §98.460(b)(3)]." However, that reference is not in the rule, it only goes to §98.460(b)(2) then progresses to §98.460(c) which I suspect is the intended list but that is not what the table says. Then, when reviewing the list, the numbering goes from v to vii with no vi. I would think the correct reference would be to §98.460(c) - both (1) and (2).

Helpline


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43422-43423]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19676]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-422, OMB Control No. 3235-0471]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 15c1-5

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c1-5 (17 CFR 240.15c1-
5) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 15c1-5 states that any broker-dealer controlled by,
controlling, or under common control with the issuer of a security that
the broker-dealer is trying to sell to or buy from a customer must give
the customer written notification disclosing the control

relationship at or before completion of the transaction. The Commission
estimates that 197 respondents collect information annually under Rule
15c1-5 and that each respondent would spend approximately 10 hours per
year collecting this information (1,970 hours in aggregate). There is
no retention period requirement under Rule 15c1-5. This Rule does not
involve the collection of confidential information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 12, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19676 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 27094]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12154]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80877; File Nos. SR-DTC-2017-004; SR-NSCC-2017-005; SR-
FICC-2017-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
National Securities Clearing Corporation; Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission
Action on Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments No. 1, To
Adopt the Clearing Agency Liquidity Risk Management Framework

June 7, 2017.
    On April 6, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC''), National
Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC''), and Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation (``FICC,'' and together with DTC and NSCC, the ``Clearing
Agencies''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2017-004, SR-NSCC-2017-
005, SR-FICC-2017-008, respectively, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ On April 13, 2017, the Clearing Agencies filed
Amendments No. 1 to the proposed rule changes, which made technical
corrections to the page numbers and the Table of Contents in the
Exhibit 5s. The proposed rule changes, as modified by Amendments No. 1
(hereinafter, ``Proposed Rule Changes''), were published for comment in
the Federal Register on April 25, 2017.\3\ The Commission did not
receive any comments on the Proposed Rule Changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80489 (April 19, 2017),
82 FR 19120 (April 25, 2017) (SR-DTC-2017-004, SR-NSCC-2017-005, SR-
FICC-2017-008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for the Proposed Rule Changes
is June 9, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the Proposed Rule Changes. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the Proposed Rule Changes so that it has sufficient time to consider
and take action on the Proposed Rule Changes.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ and for
the reasons stated above, the Commission designates July 24, 2017 as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve, disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove proposed rule
changes SR-DTC-2017-004, SR-NSCC-2017-005, and SR-FICC-2017-008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12154 Filed 6-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Docket ID#: EPA HQ-OPP-2009-0890

COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING

EPA Registration Division contact: Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>

 Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

PP# 9E7642

	EPA has received a pesticide petition 9E7642 from the Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College
Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, in cooperation with
Chemtura Corp., 199 Benson Rd (2-5), Middlebury, CT 06749 proposing,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.572 by establishing
a tolerance for residues of the insecticide bifenazate (1-methylethyl
2-(4-methoxy[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl)hydrazinecarboxylate) and
diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1’-biphenyl]-3-yl),
1-methylethyl ester (expressed as bifenazate) in or on the following
food  commodities: sugar apple, cherimoya, atemoya, custard apple,
ilama, soursop, and biriba at 1.5 parts per million (ppm); avocado at
7.0 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy
kiwifruit at 0.75 ppm; and berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 1.5
ppm.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The nature of the residues of bifenazate in plants
is adequately understood.  The major residue in all plant metabolism
studies is bifenazate.  A minor, but significant metabolite is the
diazene D3598, which was found to interconvert readily to/from
bifenazate in the plant matrix during the analytical procedure.

	2. Analytical method.  Chemtura Corporation has developed practical
analytical methodology for detecting and measuring residues of
bifenazate in or on raw agricultural commodities.   As D3598, a
significant metabolite, was found to interconvert readily to/from
bifenazate, the analytical method was designed to convert all residues
of D3598 to the parent compound (bifenazate) for analysis.  The method,
“Determination of Combined Bifenazate and D3598 Residues in Sugar
Apple”, utilizes reversed phase HPLC to separate the bifenazate from
matrix derived interferences, and oxidative coulometric electrochemical
detection for the identification and quantification of this analyte.
The lowest level of method validation (LLMV) in this study was 0.05 ppm
for each analyte.  Based on recoveries of samples fortified at the LLMV,
the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) were
calculated as 0.0308 ppm and 0.0923 ppm, respectively, for bifenazate
and as 0.0332 ppm and 0.0997 ppm, respectively, for D3598.

3. Magnitude of residues. A complete crop residue program has been
completed for bifenazate in the major growing areas of the US for:

Sugar Apple:

A crop residue program has been completed for bifenazate using
Acramite®- 50WS on sugar apple.  Three trials were conducted for this
study in accordance with U.S. EPA OPPTS 860 series guidelines in South
Florida (EPA Region 13) during the 2006 growing season.  Sugar apple is
a tropical fruit and can only be grown in Region 13.  Each trial site
included one untreated (control) plot and one treated plot.  At each
trial, two foliar applications of Acramite 50WS at a rate of
approximately 0.5 lb ai/A each were made for a total of approximately
1.0 lb ai/A to the treated plot. All applications were made 21 days
apart and timed so that commercially mature sugar apples could be
collected 1 day after the final application.

Combined residues of bifenazate and D3598 in sugar apple harvested at a
1-day PHI showed residue levels between 0.04071 ppm to 1.313 ppm.

A summary table is provided below:

Commodity	Application Rate

(lb ai/A)	PHI (days)	Residue Levels

(ppm)

	n	Min.	Max.	HAFT	Mean	Std. Dev.

Sugar Apple	0.98-1.04	1	12	0.04071	1.313	0.6658	0.3338	0.3539

Based on the results of the field trials on sugar apple, Chemtura
Corporation is proposing a crop specific tolerance of 1.5 ppm on sugar
apple (grouping also includes  cherimoya, atemoya, custard apple, ilama,
soursap, birida).

Avocado:

A ChemSAC decision stated that avocado can be assigned the highest
tropical fruit tolerance determined for either lychee (5.0 ppm), guava
(0.90 ppm), papaya (7.0 ppm) or sugar apple (1.5 ppm). Thus Chemtura is
also proposing a crop specific tolerance of 7.0 ppm on avocado.

Low growing berry subgroup 13-07G:

In accordance with Federal Register Volume 72, December 7, 2007 (pp
69150-69158) Final Rule/Pesticide Tolerance Crop Grouping, it is
requested that strawberries be expanded to Low Growing Berry Subgroup
13-07G.  This subgroup contains strawberry, bearberry; bilberry;
blueberry, lowbush; cloudberry; cranberry; lingonberry; muntries;
partridgeberry; cultivars, varieties and/or hybrids of these.

Small fruit vine climbing subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy kiwifruit:

In accordance with Federal Register Volume 72, December 7, 2007 (pp
69150-69158) Final Rule/Pesticide Tolerance Crop Grouping, it is
requested that grapes be expanded to ‘Small Fruit Vine Climbing
Subgroup 13-07F, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit’. This subgroup contains
grape; Amur River grape; gooseberry; kiwifruit, hardy; maypop;
schisandra berry; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Bifenazate Technical, Acramite-50WS have low acute
oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity in laboratory animals.  The oral
LD50 in rats and mice is greater than 5 g/kg for Acramite-50WS and the
technical material. The dermal LD50 in rats of Bifenazate Technical and
both formulations is greater than 5 g/kg.   The inhalation LC50 in the
rats of Bifenazate Technical and Acramite 50WS was found to be greater
than 4.4, 5.2 and 1.8 mg/l, respectively.  In eye irritation studies,
Acramite-50WS was a slight irritant, and Bifenazate Technical was
non-irritating. Acramite-50WS was found to be non-irritating to the skin
of rabbits and non-sensitizing on the skin of guinea pigs. Under the
test conditions for the M&K maximization test, bifenazate technical was
considered to be a sensitizer.

	2. Genotoxicty. Bifenazate was evaluated and found to be negative in
the Ames Reverse Mutation, Mouse Lymphoma, CHO Chromosome Aberration and
Mouse Micronucleus assays.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity

Rabbit Teratology Study:  A range-finding study conducted in pregnant
New Zealand White rabbits at dosage levels of 125, 250, 500, 750 and
1,000 mg/kg/day demonstrated severe maternal toxicity at dosage levels
of ≥500 mg/kg/day and abortions at dosage levels of ≥250 mg/kg/day.
Bifenazate was then administered by oral gavage to pregnant New Zealand
White rabbits at dosage levels of 10, 50 and 200 mg/kg/day. No test
article related effects were seen at any dose level.  The NOAEL for
maternal and developmental toxicity was greater than 200 mg/kg/day, but
less than 250 mg/kg/day.

Rat Teratology Study: Bifenazate did not produce developmental toxicity
when administered by oral gavage to pregnant Sprague-Dawley CD rats at
dosage levels of 10, 100 and 500 mg/kg/day.  A reduction in maternal
body weight gain was seen at dosage levels of 100 and 500 mg/kg/day.
Clinical observations at 500 mg/kg/day included red material/staining on
body surfaces, pale extremities and brown discharge. No developmental or
teratogenic effects were observed at any dosage level. The NOAEL for
maternal toxicity was 10 mg/kg/day and the NOAEL for developmental
toxicity was greater than 500 mg/kg/day.

Rat Reproduction Study: Bifenazate showed no effects on reproduction
upon dietary administration to two generations of male and female
Sprague-Dawley CD rats at dietary concentrations of 20, 80 and 200 ppm.
At a dosage level of 200 ppm there was a reduction in body weight gain
in F0 males and females.  Food consumption was unaffected.  There was a
reduction in body weight gain in F1 females at all dosage levels and in
F1 males at 80 and 200 ppm in the absence of effects on food
consumption. Since the 20 ppm F1 males did not have a significant
reduction in body weight gain, this dosage level can be considered a
NOEL for systemic adult toxicity. The reduction in body weight gain in
the F1 females at 20 ppm would not be considered biologically
significant because no effects were observed on reproductive parameters
or in the F2 litter. The reproductive and developmental NOAEL was
greater than 200 ppm (10 mg/kg/day).

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Thirteen Week Rat Feeding Study:  Bifenazate
was fed to male and female Sprague Dawley CD rats for thirteen weeks at
dietary concentrations of 40, 200 and 400 ppm. At dosage levels of 200
and 400 ppm there was a reduction in red blood cell count and
hemoglobin. Food intake was reduced for 200 ppm females and 200 and 400
ppm males. Histopathological effects were seen in the liver, spleen and
adrenal cortex in males and females at 200 and/or 400 pm.  The maximum
tolerated dose (MTD) was exceeded in females at 200 ppm and in males and
females at 400 ppm. The NOAEL for subchronic toxicity in rats was 40 ppm
(2 mg/kg/day).

Neurotoxicity Assessment: No treatment related effects were seen on
neurobehavior in a standard Functional Observation Battery conducted at
weeks 8 and 13 of the thirteen-week rat feeding study. No overt signs of
anti-cholinergic activity, and no statistically significant effects on
cholinesterase activity were seen in rats in a two week feeding study at
dose levels up to 400 ppm.  Plasma, erythrocyte and brain cholinesterase
activity were evaluated in male and female rats fed bifenazate-treated
diet at 0, 20, 200, or 400 ppm for two weeks. All animals survived until
study termination and effects were only seen on body weight gain and
food consumption. The NOAEL for cholinergic inhibition was greater than
400 ppm (20 mg/kg/day).

Thirteen Week Dog Feeding Study:  Bifenazate was fed to male and female
Beagle dogs for thirteen weeks at dietary concentrations of 40, 400 and
1,000 ppm.  At dosage levels of 400 and 1,000 ppm there was a reduction
in red blood cell count, hemoglobin and hematocrit. Liver weights were
increased at 400 and 1,000 ppm and centrilobular hepatocellular
hypertrophy was seen in females at 400 ppm and males and females at
1,000 ppm. The NOAEL for subchronic toxicity in dogs was 40 ppm (1
mg/kg/day).

	5. Chronic toxicity. Dog Chronic Feeding Study: Bifenazate was fed to
male and female Beagle dogs for one year at dietary concentrations of
40, 400 and 1,000 ppm.  At dose levels of 400 and 1,000 ppm, there was a
reduction in food consumption in males and reduced body weight gain in
males and females.  There was a reduction in red blood cell count,
hemoglobin and hematocrit and an increase in bilirubin at 400 and 1,000
ppm.  Histopathological effects on bone marrow, kidney and liver were
also seen at these dose levels.  The NOAEL for chronic toxicity in dogs
was 40 ppm (1 mg/kg/day).

Rat Chronic Feeding/Oncogenicity Study:  Bifenazate was not oncogenic in
rats when fed to male and female Sprague-Dawley CD rats for two years at
dietary concentrations of 20, 80 and 160 in females or 20, 80 and 200
ppm in males.  Body weight gain was reduced in males and females at the
high dosage levels. A reduction in red blood cell count and an increase
in splenic pigment were seen in females at 160 ppm, while high dose
males exhibited a reduction in total cholesterol and an increase in
splenic pigment. At a dose level of 80 ppm there was a reduction in body
weight gain, a decrease in red blood cell count and an increase in
splenic pigment in females. There was no increase in tumor incidence in
males or females as a result of bifenazate administration. The NOAEL for
chronic toxicity in rats was 20 ppm (1 mg/kg/day).

Mouse Oncogenicity Study:  Bifenazate was not oncogenic when fed to male
and female CD-1 mice for eighteen months at dietary concentrations of
10, 100 and 175 ppm in females and 10, 100 and 225 ppm in males. Body
weight gain was reduced in males and females at the high dose level. A
reduction in red blood cell, total leukocyte and lymphocyte counts was
seen in males at 225 ppm.  There was no increase in tumor incidence in
males or females as a result of bifenazate administration.

	6. Animal metabolism. In rat, [14C]-bifenazate, [14C-Phenyl] Hydrazine
carboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1?-biphenyl]-3-yl)-1-methylethyl ester
was extensively metabolized when it was given orally in two dose levels
low (10 mg/kg), and high (1000 mg/kg). Although 2/3 of the dosed
radioactivity was excreted in the feces, bifenazate depicted a good
degree of absorption as indicated from the level of radioactivity in the
bile.  In the bile radioactivity study, about 70% of the C-14 was
collected from the cannulated bile ducts of low dosed rats indicating an
active level of absorption and enterohepatic circulation.

In general, the major metabolites present in feces, urine and bile
resulted from several well known metabolic reactions, including
hydrazine oxidation to diazene (D3598), molecular scission with loss of
the hydrazine carboxylic acid portion of the molecule to yield
4-methoxybiphenyl (D1989) followed by demethylation to form
4-hydroxybiphenyl (A1530). Metabolites resulted from aromatic
hydroxylation, and conjugation with glucuronic acid or sulfate were also
identified.

Pharmacokinetic parameters: The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax,
calculated as ppm D2341 equivalents) was reached much earlier following
the low dose (5-6 h) than the high dose (18-24 h). Elimination
half-lives (t1/2) were marginally longer at the high dose (12-16 h) than
at the low dose (12-13 h).  There were no obvious and consistent sex
differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters.

7. Metabolite toxicology. In a single dose oral toxicity limit test in
rats, the oral LD50 of the diazene product of bifenazate was estimated
to be approximately 5,000 mg/kg. At two hours and at seven days
post-dosing, no effects were seen on erythrocyte cholinesterase
inhibition in male or female rats.  In addition, no effect on plasma
cholinesterase inhibition was seen in male rats at seven days only.
Since this effect was seen only in plasma of females at one time point,
it is most likely a pseudocholinesterase effect without biological
significance.  In a dermal toxicity screen, the LD50 of the diazene was
estimated to be >2,000 mg/kg.

Mutagenicity screens with the diazene showed it to be weakly positive in
the Salmonella plate incorporation (Ames) assay in TA98 with activation
and negative in the L5178Y mouse lymphoma and mouse micronucleus assays.

	8. Endocrine disruption. There are no known reported adverse
reproductive or developmental effects in domestic animals or wildlife as
a result of exposure to this chemical.

A standard battery of required toxicity tests have been conducted on
bifenazate. No effects were seen in the reproduction or teratology
studies to indicate that bifenazate has an effect on the endocrine
system. Bifenazate administration to rats for 90 days at dose levels of
200 and 400 ppm resulted in an increased incidence of vacuolation in the
zona fasciculate of the adrenal cortex in male rats.  No effect was seen
at a dose level of 40 ppm (2 mg/kg/day). However, in the chronic rat
feeding study, no effect was seen on the adrenal cortex in male rats fed
200 ppm for one year. Furthermore, fasting glucose levels were not
reduced at any dose level in males or females in either study.  The zona
fasciculate is the site of cortisol production and cortisol is required
for gluconogenesis during fasting. The finding that fasting glucose
levels are not affected would suggest that adrenal cortex functionality
is not impaired at any dose level by bifenazate.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure. Based on dietary, drinking water, and
non-occupational exposure assessments, there is reasonable certainty of
no harm to the US population, any population subgroup, or infants and
children from chronic exposure to bifenazate.

Food. Chronic dietary exposures were estimated utilizing the Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model software with Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCID), version 2.16.  The most current and proposed crops are
included in EPA’s 2007 assessment assuming tolerance-level residues
and 100% crop treated.  EPA used anticipated residues for some crops
(i.e., average residues from field trials for squash, peach and tomato)
and percent crop treated estimates for some foods (i.e., almonds,
apples, apricots, cherries, cucumbers, grapes, nectarines, oranges,
peaches, pears, pecans, peppers, pistachios, prunes & plums,
strawberries, tomatoes, walnuts and watermelons).  Chemical-specific
processing factors are also included for apple juice (0.23), grape juice
(0.17), wine/sherry (0.17), tomato paste (1.0) and tomato puree (1.0).
The percent crop treated for soybeans is 0% because there was no use on
soybeans in 2005 or 2006 or 2007, and there are no plans to pursue
future use of bifenazate on soybeans.  Market projections are 1% for
tropical fruit (except avocados) group 6B and 10% for caneberries.

Total chronic exposures to registered and proposed crops range from
0.001171 mg/kg/day (11.7% of cPAD) for youth aged 13-19 years to
0.005506 (55.1% of cPAD) for children aged 1-2 years old.  Chronic
dietary exposure for the U.S. population is estimated to be 0.001943
mg/kg/d (19.4% of cPAD).  Chronic dietary exposures less than 100% of
the cPAD are not of concern. The dietary exposures presented here are
only slightly greater than those estimated by EPA in the December 14,
2007, assessment supporting registration of caneberries (Subgroup 13A),
wild raspberry, Subgroups 6A and 6B, succulent-shelled soybeans and
assorted tropical fruit. It should be noted that assumption of 100% crop
treated on most crops in this assessment is extremely conservative.
Chemtura projects a market share for most crops of approximately 1% for
minor crops in crop groups and the low susceptibility of the minor crops
to mites.  Unless mites are present, bifenazate will not be used.

The chronic exposures estimated here are conservative because
tolerance-level residues are also assumed for most crops and because the
percent crop treated assumption for most crops is 100%.  Existing crop
treated data show only minimal treatment of registered crops with
bifenazate.  Use on most crops, especially those significant in
children’s diets, is estimated to be 1% (apples, cherries), 5%
(grapes, plums) or 10% (peaches, pears).

ii. Drinking water. Exposure to bifenazate and potential residues in
drinking water is expected to be negligible. Bifenazate (half-life of 30
minutes) degrades rapidly under aerobic conditions to D3598 (half-life
of 7 hours), which degrades rapidly to D1989 (half-life of 96 days).
Photodegradation and other routes of dissipation of bifenazate do not
appear to be significant. Based on these data, the residue of concern
was considered to be D1989. Parent and D3598 were not included as
residues of concern in drinking later due to the short half-lives of
these compounds and the lack of an acute dietary endpoint. As reported
in the February 4, 2004 Federal Register (69 CFR 5289-5297), the annual
average estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for bifenazate
(6.38 ppb in surface water and < 0.001 ppb in ground water) are based on
a single application of 0.75 lb ai/acre to strawberries, since the
application to grass was assumed not to impact the EECs estimated by
EPA. Chronic estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of D1989 in
surface and ground water were generated using FIRST and SCI-GROW (1
application at 0.75 lbs ai/acre). The FIRST model generated an EEC of
6.4 ppb and SCI-GROW model generated an EEC of <0.001 ppb. These EEC
values are lower than the drinking water levels of concern (DWLOC) for
adults (260 ppb) and infants 1-2 years of age (8.8 ppb). Uses on
proposed crops were assumed not to impact the EEC estimates.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. As reported in the September 26, 2003 Federal
Register notice (68 FR 55494-55503), EPA estimated a combined MOE for
4200 for residents applying a product to home ornamental plants and
fruit trees.  Therefore, for the current short-term aggregate assessment
this MOE was included in estimating the short-term aggregate MOE
resulting from dietary and residential exposures.  Calculations were
performed for population subgroups that might apply bifenazate to
ornamentals and fruit trees (i.e., youth 13-19 years old, adults 20-49
years old, females 13-49 years old, adults 50+ years old and the general
population).  The short term oral endpoint for this scenario is 10
mg/kg/d.  MOEs range from 2300-2800.  Estimated aggregate MOEs in excess
of the target MOE (100) indicate reasonable certainty of no harm
resulting from aggregate bifenazate exposures from food, drinking water
and residential uses.

D. Cumulative Effects. The mechanism/mode of action of bifenazate on the
mammalian red blood cell, which is target organ in the species tested,
remains to be elucidated. The lack of information on bifenazate mode of
action precludes an assessment of cumulative effects. EPA has not made a
common mechanism of toxicity finding as to bifenazate and any other
substances and bifenazate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Based on the toxicology database and available
information on anticipated residues, chronic dietary exposure to the
U.S. population (total) was 19.4% of the cPAD. The FIRST model generated
an EEC of 6.4 ppb and SCI-GROW model generated an EEC of <0.001 ppb.
These EEC values are lower than the drinking water levels of concern
(DWLOC) for adults (260 ppb). The combined MOE from the limited
potential for short-term exposure from residential uses is >1000. Based
on these assessments, it can be concluded that there is reasonable
certainty of no harm to the U.S. population or any population subgroup
from exposure to bifenazate.

	2. Infants and children. Based on the toxicology database and available
information on anticipated residues, chronic dietary exposure to infants
(under 1 year of age) was 40.7% of the cPAD and to children (1-2 years
of age) was 55.1% of the cPAD. The FIRST model generated an EEC of 6.4
ppb and SCI-GROW model generated an EEC of <0.001 ppb. These EEC values
are lower than the drinking water levels of concern (DWLOC) for infants
1-2 years of age (8.8 ppb). The combined MOE from the limited potential
for short-term exposure from residential uses is >1000. Based on these
assessments, it can be concluded that there is reasonable certainty of
no harm to the U.S. Population or any population subgroup from exposure
to bifenazate.

F. International Tolerances

	There are no CODEX or other international MRLs or tolerances for the
requested uses identified in this petition. In Argentina, the following
Tolerance/MRLs have been established: Apples 1 (mg/kg). In Australia,
Tolerance/MRL’s have been established: Apricot 0.5, Apple 2.0,
Nectarine 0.5, Peach 2.0, Pear 2.0, Plum including prune 0.5, and Pome
Fruits 2 (mg/kg). In Canada Tolerance/MRLs have been established: Apple
0.6, Cucumber 0.25, Grape 1.0, Pepper 1.1, Raisins 1.2 and Tomato 0.35
(ppm). An important tolerance is also published for strawberry (1.5
ppm). In Chile, Tolerance/MRLs have been established: Apple 0.75,
Nectarine 1.7, Peach 1.7, Pear 0.75, Plum 0.3 (mg/kg).  In Japan
Tolerance/MRLs have been established: Apple 2.0, Cherry 3.0, Citrus
Fruit 1.0, Cucumber 0.75, Eggplant 2.0, Grape 3.0, Melon 0.2, Peach 2.0,
Pear 2.0, Plum 3.0, Strawberry 5.0, Tea 2.0, Tomato 1.0, and Watermelon
0.3 (mg/kg). In Korea Tolerance/MRLs have been established: Apple 1.0,
Citrus 0.1, Eggplant 0.5, Peach 0.3, Pear 0.2, Rose N/A, Watermelon 0.1
(mg/kg). The EU commission has set MRLs of 2 mg/kg for Strawberries and
Peppers, 0.5 for Aubergines and Tomatoes and 0.3 for Cucurbits with
edible peel.

 PAGE

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

>

C

K

L

e

q

‹

“

™

¨

´

µ

¶

Á

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

†

‡

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

@

@

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

@

@

Æ

Æ

@

@

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

 PAGE   9


Docket Index Table of Contents
A.	U.S. EPA Rulemakings, Guidance Documents, Informational Memoranda, Technical Support Documents, Memoranda to File, and Data Analysis Documents	1
B.	State Plans, Rules, Support Documents, Reports, and Correspondence	2
C.	Notice of Proposed Rulemaking	3
D.	Public Comments and Related Documents	3
E.	Additional Documents Considered for Final Rulemaking	3
F.	Notice of Final Rulemaking	4

U.S. EPA Rulemakings, Guidance Documents, Informational Memoranda, Technical Support Documents, Memoranda to File, and Data Analysis Documents
Rulemakings
52 FR 24634, Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (July 1, 1987).
52 FR 29383, PM10 Group I and Group II Areas (August 7, 1987).
56 FR 56694, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Final rule (November 6, 1991).
67 FR 50805, Clean Air Act Redesignation and Reclassification, Searles Valley Nonattainment Area; Designation of Coso Junction, Indian Wells Valley, and Trona Nonattainment Areas; California; Determination of Attainment of the PM - 10 Standards for Coso Junction Area; Particulate Matter of 10 microns or less (PM - 10); Final rule (August 6, 2002).
67 FR 77196, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas; California - Indian Wells Valley PM - 10 Nonattainment Area; Proposed rule (December 17, 2002).
68 FR 24368, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas; California - Indian Wells Valley PM - 10 Nonattainment Area; Final rule (May 7, 2003).
71 FR 61144, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Final rule (October 17, 2006).
78 FR 3086, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Final rule (January 15, 2013).
84 FR 41717, Official Release of EMFAC2017 Motor Vehicle Emission Factor Model for Use in the State of California; Notice of availability (August 15, 2019).
84 FR 51310, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program; Withdrawal of waiver; final rule (September 27, 2019).
Guidance Documents and Informational Memoranda
Memorandum dated September 4, 1992, from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, entitled "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment."
EPA, PM-10 Emission Inventory Requirements, September 1994.
"Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations," EPA-454/B-17-002, May 2017. Available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-emissions-inventory-guidance-implementation-ozone-and-particulate.
Technical Support Documents, Memoranda to File, and Data Analysis Documents
Letter dated June 27, 2018, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Glen E. Stephens, P.E., Air Pollution Control Officer, EKAPCD.
Letter dated November 5, 2020, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment Branch, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB.
Memorandum dated February 4, 2021, from Karina O'Connor, EPA, to Rulemaking Docket ID EPA-R09-OAR-0549, Subject: "Adequacy Documentation for Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Indian Wells Second PM10 Maintenance Plan."
EPA Air Quality System Air Monitoring Program (AMP) 450 Quicklook Criteria Parameters for 2001-2021, accessed February 8, 2021.
EPA Air Quality System Air Monitoring Program (AMP) 480 Design Value Report for 2001-2021, accessed February 8, 2021.
EPA Air Quality System Air Monitoring Program (AMP) 480 Design Value Report for 2020, accessed August 10, 2021.
EPA Air Quality System Air Monitoring Program (AMP) 440 Maximum Values Report for 2019-2020, accessed August 10, 2021.
EPA Air Quality System Air Monitoring Program (AMP) 360 Raw Data Qualified Report for 2003, accessed August 10, 2021.

State Plans, Rules, Support Documents, Reports, and Correspondence
State Implementation Plan Submissions Addressed by this Rulemaking
Letter dated July 23, 2020, from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to John W. Busterud, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, including enclosures.
CARB, "Completeness Checklist for SIP Revision, California State Implementation Plan, Indian Wells Valley Second 10-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan (2020 PM10 Plan)."
"Indian Wells Valley Second 10-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan," adopted by Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District on May 7, 2020.
"Indian Wells Valley, Condensable PM10 Emission Inventory."
CARB, "Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Indian Wells Valley Second 10-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan," June 25, 2020.
CARB Resolution 20-18, "Indian Wells Valley Second 10-Year Pm10 Maintenance Plan," June 25, 2020.
EKAPCD Resolution 2020-003-05, "Resolution Approving Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District Indian Wells Valley Second 10-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan," May 7, 2020.
CARB, "Public Meeting Agenda, Thursday, June 25, 2020 and Friday, June 26, 2020."
EKAPCD Evidence of Public Notice.
CARB, SPeCS submission form, July 30, 2020.

 Additional State Documents
Email dated January 23, 2020, from Nesamani Kalandiyur, CARB to Karina O'Connor, EPA Region IX, Subject: "RE: Indian Wells Valley Transportation Conformity Budget - IAC."
Email dated February 4, 2021, from Nesamani Kalandiyur, CARB, to Karina O'Connor, EPA Region IX, Subject: "RE: Question Regarding Indian Wells 2nd Maintenance Plan."
Letter dated June 21, 2021, from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, CARB, to Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 9.
Email dated August 20, 2021, from Jeremiah Cravens, EKAPCD, to Ashley Graham, EPA Region IX. See also EPA Air Quality System Raw Data Qualifier Report 2003, accessed August 10, 2021.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
86 FR 56848, Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for the Indian Wells Valley PM10 Planning Area; California; Proposed rule (October 13, 2021).
Public Comments and Related Documents
<RESERVED>
Additional Documents Considered for Final Rulemaking
<RESERVED>
Notice of Final Rulemaking
<RESERVED>