ramento Fire Department. 14 I'm here today representing the California Fire 15 Chief's Association. That organization is comprised of 16 fire Chiefs from over 1,100 fire departments in 17 California. 18 The California Fire Chiefs Association is 19 concerned that the California Air Resources Board's plan 20 to require installation of high efficiency, hot catalytic 21 exhaust systems on lawn and garden equipment could 22 increase the risk and severity of operator burns and wild 23 land fires. Also, they could have associated problems 24 with refueling fires and fires in garages after the hot 25 equipment is stored after use. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 327 1 It appears that most of our concerns from the 2 July 2nd meeting that I attended have been addressed in 3 the alternative standards that were presented today. Cal 4 Chiefs would like more time to study the new changes to 5 see how their impacts would affect fire safety. 6 As we have stated before, the California Fire 7 Chiefs Association would welcome the opportunity to work 8 with other safety experts to address the unresolved safety 9 issues to ensure that the citizens of California are 10 getting not only the best environmental policy, but also 11 the best safety policy we can give them. 12 I'd be glad to answer any questions. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 14 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: We  I don't know 15 if you're familiar with our process. But if we adopt this 16 proposal today, with some modifications, there's still a 17 15 day period in which we receive additional information 18 and comment. And I'm wondering if you can't give us 19 further input if there is any additional concern or 20 further concern in that period of time. 21 MR. MEDICH: I think that'd be reasonable. 22 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Am I correct on 23 that? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: You're quite 25 right. It also takes as an amount of time to put together PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 328 1 the package for 15 day changes. So there is a month or so 2 of time even before that goes out where we can be talking 3 and meeting and the fire chiefs can do their evaluation. 4 And then we'll have actual regulatory language for them to 5 look at. 6 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Yeah, these rules 7 don't go into effect themselves by their own terms for a 8 while. So there's a lead time. But we don't want to 9 unduly delay. On the other hand, I for one want to be 10 sure that we have got the full benefit of the 11 professionals on this safety question. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. And, again, your 13 comments are very helpful. And I think staff has looked 14 through and addressed the safety issue as far as we could 15 see very well. And the fact that Honda indicated they 16 don't see a major issue there, also that's very helpful. 17 But we really appreciate your comments. Look 18 forward to working with you to make sure that we do 19 everything we can to mitigate that. 20 MR. MEDICH: Thank you, sir. 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thanks very much for coming. 22 Dave Modisette and Jed Mandel. 23 MR. MODISETTE: Yes, thank you, Chairman Lloyd, 24 members of the Board. I'm Dave Modisette. I represent 25 the California Electric Transportation Coalition. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 329 1 Although I'm here to present a position statement that 2 includes seven other organizations: The American Lung 3 Association of California, the Center for Energy 4 Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, the Coalition for 5 Clean Air, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 6 Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation, the Sierra Club, and 7 the Union of Concerned Scientists. 8 We strongly support CARB's proposed rulemaking to 9 strengthen exhaust and evaporative emission control 10 requirements for small off road equipment and engines. 11 The proposed measure, if adopted, would be a significant 12 step towards achieving California's clean air goals and 13 would provide essential public health benefits for all 14 Californians. In addition to supporting the adoption of 15 the regulation, we urge the Board to commit to a future 16 rulemaking that would encourage the sale of zero emission 17 equipment in this category. 18 Off road engines in California are responsible 19 for a significant amount of air pollutants and 20 traditionally have not been held to the same emission 21 standards as on road engines. 22 Under the current regulations, off road engines 23 are expected to account for more than 60 percent of 24 California's total mobile source hydrocarbon and nitrogen 25 oxide emissions by 2020, compared to only 37 percent in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 330 1 the year 2000. 2 There is a clear need to address the increasing 3 significance of off road engine pollution in California. 4 The proposed regulation for reducing exhaust and 5 evaporative emissions from small offroad engines and 6 equipment is the necessary step in reducing air pollution 7 from these engines. 8 While we support the adoption of the rule as 9 proposed by the staff, we would also like a commitment by 10 the Board to promote the adoption of zero emission 11 equipment in a future rulemaking. The current regulation 12 has no provision for either encouraging the use or sale of 13 electric powered zero emission equipment. And maybe just 14 as a footnote I should say that this is based on the 15 August 8th staff proposal. It does not include any 16 changes that were presented today. I did see a reference 17 to zero emission equipment in the staff presentation 18 today, and I think we'd like to learn more about that. 19 The August 8th, 2003, CARB staff report describes 20 the benefits of zero emission technology in this category. 21 I won't repeat that here. The staff report also states 22 that electric powered handheld equipment was readily 23 available for the residential user market. This equipment 24 includes both cordless and corded models of line trimmers, 25 hedge trimmers, leaf blowers, chain saws, tillers, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 331 1 lawnmowers. 2 Markets for much of this electrical equipment are 3 already well established. For example, electric mowers 4 are estimated to be about 10 percent of the California 5 market according to the staff report. 6 Manufacturers should be encouraged and rewarded 7 for increasing their proportionate sales of zero emission 8 equipment in California. This could be accomplished in 9 several ways. But the use of a manufacturer's fleet 10 average standard that includes zero emission equipment 11 sold by manufacturers in California may provide the best 12 combination of additional emissions reductions and 13 compliance flexibility. 14 This fleet average concept is not included in the 15 rulemaking that is before you today, and will take 16 additional work to develop. Further, the fleet average 17 concept is not incompatible with the minimum ICE standards 18 proposed by staff in the rulemaking before you. 19 We urge the Board to direct staff to begin work 20 to develop a fleet average construct or other mechanism 21 that includes and encourages zero emission equipment in 22 these small off road categories. This construct would be 23 subject to the rulemaking process and should have an 24 appropriate implementation lag to provide compliance 25 flexibility. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 332 1 In order to develop the fleet average construct, 2 staff needs to have information on the annual sales of 3 zero emission equipment and on the existing inventory of 4 the equipment. We do not know if staff has this 5 information or has a current means of getting it. It may 6 be that a reporting requirement is needed whereby 7 manufacturers report their annual sales of zero emission 8 and other equipment within the small off road category. 9 The Board should consider this issue today. 10 In conclusion, the proposed rules are 11 technologically feasible, as shown by the staff, and will 12 achieve cost effective emissions reductions from small 13 off road equipment. We urge the Board to adopt the rules 14 as proposed for the benefit of all Californians. We also 15 urge the Board to direct staff to begin work to include 16 zero emission equipment in the regulatory framework for 17 small off road equipment in a way that encourages and 18 rewards manufacturers for increasing their proportionate 19 sales of this equipment and reducing emissions even 20 further than required by the currently proposed 21 regulations. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you, Dave. And I think 24 we would support that. Maybe staff can look at the zero 25 emission. And that would include push mowers, too. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 333 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We did evaluate 2 the issue of electric power equipment to as much as we 3 could during the process of this rulemaking. And we were 4 unable to arrive at either a regulatory approach  well, 5 we were unable to arrive at a regulatory approach that we 6 believed would work. 7 And the fleet average, which sounds so 8 compellingly simple, does not work easily in this market 9 where there's both integrated and nonintegrated equipment 10 and against whom is the fleet average levied and who's 11 held responsible for that. 12 So we also encountered a barrier with the 13 difference between residential and commercial users going 14 to the same retail site, and could not think of a way to 15 prevent a residential user from walking away from that 16 site with a fuel power piece of equipment that when they 17 arrive there they're only allowed to purchase an electric. 18 So our tentative conclusion is that an 19 incentive based strategy on electric is ultimately going 20 to be more successful. And to the extent the Board wants 21 us to keep endeavoring in this area, we would hope you 22 would say not to come back certainly with a regulation 23 because we're still not sure that's feasible, but instead 24 to come back with recommendations on how it is we should 25 increase the penetration of electric equipment. It's just PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 334 1 a very complicated issue. 2 And we support completely the goal of doing it. 3 But we couldn't figure out how in this regulation, and 4 that's why it isn't here. And it wasn't just a matter of 5 time. Give us six more months and we'll tell you how we 6 think there's some fundamental issues about trying to do 7 it through a regulatory method. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Professor Friedman. 9 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Well, Ms. D'Adamo 10 mentioned it earlier. And I whispered to her, " I like the 11 idea." I wonder if it wouldn't be productive for Mr. 12 Modisette to meet with staff and, as staff continues, to 13 see what could incentivize zero emission equipment of this 14 sort, and whatever else you can come up with. 15 I don't know that it should be then part of this 16 rulemaking. But it could always be a separate but related 17 proposal later. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We'd be happy to 19 talk to him about it. Maybe he's got some  20 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Could we put some 21 time on it? Six months? 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Sure, for a 23 report back. I just didn't want to promise you we could 24 get back here with a regulation. 25 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: No, I understand. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 335 1 But a concept and a recommendation that  2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Sure. 3 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: We have a model. 4 Go ahead, Didi. 5 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: So do we keep it on 6 our agenda? 7 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: No, no. We were 8 thinking about maybe an MOU that would just be required. 9 They'd agree to sell, say, 10 percent, 20 percent of 10 their  11 ( Laughter.) 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I think Dave has 13 been  14 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Worked so well last 15 time. 16 ( Laughter.) 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Dave has been very helpful, I 18 think, in creative  in bringing stuff before the Board. 19 So that would be very good. 20 And, Didi, you've got a better suggestion? 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, no, not that I have 22 a better one. But I just think  you know, we push so 23 hard on cars, which was so much more difficult. The 24 technology is definitely there. We know it. And I can 25 see why there would be issues with a fleet average PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 336 1 concept. But I'm kind of thinking that the 2 incentive based program is not, you know, far enough. 3 So we'd just be hopeful that staff could remain 4 open to some of these other concepts, and flexible. And, 5 again, I suggest that you work with Dave's groups. I'd be 6 happy to join in the effort as well. I feel pretty 7 strongly about this. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: In terms of 9 timing  I just chatted with Mr. Cackette  six months 10 seems like about the right amount of time to report back 11 to you on where that stands, if that's amenable to you 12 all. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Can we offer any incentives 14 to shorten that? 15 ( Laughter.) 16 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Three 17 more staff. 18 ( Laughter.) 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Good call. 20 And, by the way, I realize how tough it's been 21 and how much there is on the staff's plate. So I respect 22 that. And I was only kidding. 23 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: And I 24 didn't mean to be  adjust either. But, you know, 25 there's quite a bit of work following up on this Board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 337 1 meeting should you approve this regulation. And they have 2 to do that work first to make sure we get through the 3 process, so  4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: I agree. 5 Thanks very much, Dave. 6 MR. MODISETTE: That sounds very good. I've 7 already had  you know, Tom and I and Bob Cross have 8 already had some discussions on this. So, yes, I'd very 9 much like to work with staff on this. 10 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Great. We really appreciate 11 your offer to help there. 12 Jed is now so much smarter than he was earlier 13 on. So we've got the benefit of that wisdom. 14 MR. MANDEL: Of course that's not saying very 15 much. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Clean up batter. 17 MR. MANDEL: What I was going to say is the real 18 reason why I wanted to go last was for once you'd be 19 pleased to see me come up here. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: By the way, I didn't like 21 your suggestion to address this safety issue a little more 22 is that in fact we require your operators to provide 23 asbestos gloves for the operation of the equipment. 24 MR. MANDEL: Well, I'm investing my stock  25 maiden stock in that asbestos company right now. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 338 1 Good afternoon, almost good evening. 2 Again, my name is Jed Mandel. I'm here today on 3 behalf of the Engine Manufacturers Association. And as I 4 think you know, EMA's members include the principal 5 manufacturers of the Class 1 and Class 2 non handheld 6 spark ignited engines for the subject of today's proposal. 7 We believe that further exhaust and evaporative 8 emission reductions can and should be implemented in 9 California. And we are committed to do so. But we cannot 10 support the original staff proposal that was incorporated 11 in the mail out. 12 Instead, we developed an alternate proposal that 13 would provide California the same benefits as it would 14 have achieved under the staff's proposal at a far lesser 15 cost, with substantially less burden and disruption to the 16 industry, in a manner that is practical, realistic, and 17 enforceable. 18 Two days ago the staff provided us with the 19 outline of an alternative program that is similar but not 20 identical to what we proposed. In fact, it proposes some 21 programs that go beyond what we asked for. And I might 22 add, it is completely different from and not within the 23 scope of the original staff proposal that was part of the 24 mail out package. 25 No details have yet been developed on how the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 339 1 staff's alternate program would work and no draft 2 regulatory language has yet been developed. 3 There are complex, innovative, and challenging 4 aspects of the staff's proposal that cannot fully or 5 properly be assessed without a modest amount of additional 6 time. Based on the staff's representations, we think we 7 might be close. But we do not yet have enough of the 8 critical details to know whether we can reach an agreement 9 for sure. 10 The failure to reach an agreement today, that we 11 can stand up here and represent we already have, is simply 12 the result of running out of time. Admittedly, the 13 industry originally advocated regulatory concepts quite 14 different from that which we proposed to the staff. And 15 the staff only had a few weeks to assess our recent 16 proposal. 17 Now, we only have really a couple of days, and in 18 some detail only a couple of hours, to assess the staff's 19 outline of its proposal, and without knowing the critical 20 details. 21 I know Professor Friedman asked earlier  and 22 I'm going to try and anticipate your question  as what 23 some of the examples are of where they're not necessarily 24 aligning up. 25 I represented to you that in one case the staff's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 340 1 proposal provides more than what the industry asked for. 2 And when I say the industry, I'm talking about the 3 EMA/ OPEI proposal. And the area of concern there is the 4 fleet averaging program. As many of you know, and I know 5 as the staff knows, because we've worked on these programs 6 over the years, EMA and its members historically are 7 advocates of averaging programs. And, in fact, we're 8 interested in exploring this averaging program. 9 But one of the things that we've always found 10 interesting in our internal discussions and interesting in 11 some of our discussions with regulators is that averaging 12 programs have the potential for creating an unlevel 13 playing field if they're not very carefully developed. 14 This is an averaging program, or at least a concept, that 15 developed without any input from any of the Engine 16 Manufacturers Association's members or obviously from the 17 Association itself. And, candidly, we're a little 18 concerned that it doesn't play out in a way that creates 19 an unlevel playing field between competitors. 20 I'm also   was mindful of the comment about the 21 interest in electric mowers and in push mowers. And it 22 strikes me that it would not be in the Board's best 23 interests if at the end of the day the fleet averaging 24 program would allow an engine manufacturer and equipment 25 manufacturer to package up a relatively inexpensive push PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 341 1 mower in with their regular spark ignited internal 2 combustion engine and claim on average it was not having 3 very many exhaust or evaporative emissions. 4 So I think averaging programs, while they're 5 interesting, have a lot of, as the classic phrase goes, 6 " Devil in the Details" that we're very concerned about, 7 and we think you as a Board ought to be concerned about. 8 Another area that was new to us is the compliance 9 validation plan that's just referenced again at the end of 10 the staff's proposal. We don't know what that means. We 11 don't know how it will work. Obviously, we have an 12 opportunity through the 15 day notice process to work out 13 those issues. But we are very concerned that in fact when 14 the staff represents to us that their proposal is exactly 15 what we've asked for, then in fact we may be talking past 16 each other since that program starts to look like an 17 individual manufacturer's year by year, sort of zero  of 18 summing to zero individual compliance program as opposed 19 to an alternate industry wide program not requiring 20 individual engine manufacturer demonstrations of 21 compliance for the manufacturer as opposed to the 22 industry. Again, we may be talking past each other. I 23 don't know. 24 There's also a very important requested for 25 requirement of demonstrating equivalents on the running PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 342 1 loss cannister issue. We totally support that. We're 2 very appreciative of the staff's proposal. We just don't 3 know how it's going to work. And, again, a very, very 4 important detail. 5 There are also other areas that provide some 6 uncertainty or where it doesn't appear yet that what the 7 staff has represented as their alternative proposal is 8 exactly what the industry asked for. You've already heard 9 about the issue of defining the program in such a way that 10 its limits are only for the benefit of the State of 11 California. I'm not going to raise that up early, except 12 it is a point of some difference. 13 There's also a very important difference on the 14 enforcement side of the program. We very carefully 15 suggested to the staff, as I think the staff acknowledged 16 earlier in their own report, that the practicality of a 17 mandatory recall for a consumer product like lawnmowers, 18 unregistered in many cases at least in the high volume 19 cases, considered a throwaway product, it's just not a 20 very practical way to enforce the program. 21 Right now that's the only authority that's 22 provided in the package. And we have suggested that 23 EPA  excuse me  that ARB align itself more in the way 24 EPA does the enforcement program, which does suggest a 25 whole realm of enforcement options, with recall being PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 343 1 recognized as one that is not practical. 2 I'm also frankly a little concerned in terms of 3 the staff proposal, in understanding it, in that there's 4 an exhaust component  which, by the way, we support. 5 Those are the numbers that we asked for. And, by the way, 6 a perfect example of changes that would be easily handled 7 in a 15 day notice. They're not very complex, very 8 understandable, and ones that we support. 9 As I understand the way it's being proposed 10 though, those exhaust numbers would now be paired with 11 three options for compliance with the evaporative side: 12 The original staff proposal, Alternate 1, and Alternate 2; 13 with Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 being evaporative 14 proposals specifically designed to provide 15 over achievements on the hydrocarbon evaporative emission 16 side to balance out some of the shortfall on the exhaust 17 side. 18 But the original staff proposal doesn't have any 19 overexceedance on the evaporative emission program. And 20 I believe that the August 8th mail out, that evaporative 21 emission program, paired with the exhaust proposal that we 22 heard from the staff today, in fact would result in a 23 significant ton shortfall for California. And I believe 24 if you adopt that today, that becomes the law, and 25 manufacturers could choose that route. I don't think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 344 1 that's what the Board intends. 2 We are committed to working with you and the 3 staff to assure that real emission reductions are achieved 4 in a cost effective and timely manner. I am requesting 5 that we have modest additional time that would be required 6 for us to address these issues that I've noted today, 7 issues that, by the way, I'm very optimistic can be 8 addressed. And we'd like to do so in a process that 9 assures openness in a board hearing so that we're not 10 surprised as part of a final 15 day rule  the rule 11 finalized as a result of the 15 day process, that other 12 new issues have surfaced that we never really had a chance 13 to comment on or report back to you on. 14 I do know because I've had a chance to talk to 15 staff throughout the course of the day, and I've had a 16 chance to talk briefly with Dr. Lloyd today, that there is 17 a great deal of obvious interest on the part of the Board 18 of adopting a rule today. I understand that. 19 I do think that the process issues and the real 20 issues that I've noted today do suggest that, again, 21 putting this over to December  I might add, by the way, 22 that this industry has a history of having rulemakings at 23 Christmas time with the Board. We'd love to come back out 24 here when it's cold in the midwest. But putting this off 25 to December we don't think will put any delay in terms of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 345 1 implementation of the rules. 2 And the only other thing I'd say, in anticipation 3 perhaps of the Board's, as I said, reluctance to do 4 that  although that is what we're asking for  is 5 perhaps as an alternative to think about, first of all, 6 providing more than 15 days. The 15 day process, as I 7 understand California law, only says 15 days minimum. You 8 can provide more time. And also to put on your calendar 9 for December this item so that if it turns out that there 10 is difficulty in trying to get this rule resolved through 11 a staff process, that we have an opportunity in a timely 12 fashion without delay and without turning to any 13 acrimonious process to come back to the Board so we can 14 get closure on this and start producing product to the 15 clean standards that you will have adopted. 16 Thank you very much for your time. 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you very much, Jed. 18 You raised a number of issues there. 19 Professor Friedman. 20 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I think I heard 21 earlier the need for certainty. And I'm wondering if this 22 isn't  to me it sounds very familiar, the list of open 23 questions about how it would work, precisely what the 24 details are, which is typically what we have our 15 day 25 notice for as long as the basic principles and concepts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 346 1 are the policy, as opposed to all the procedures. And I 2 know that the Devil is in the details sometimes. But we 3 rarely have ever adopted a rulemaking that is finished 4 with every comma and every period when we act, as opposed 5 to under the 15 day notice. And that allows some time, 6 weeks, for such as the interested parties to work with 7 staff and thrash all this out without our having to do 8 that. And then they report back to us. And if amendments 9 are needed or something, that's a different matter. 10 But is 15 days notice adequate? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We're happy to 12 give them 30. We just did that on the 15 day process for 13 the ZEV regulatory changes, the full 30, recognizing the 14 complexity and how the pieces of the reg interacted with 15 one another. So there's no problem doing that. 16 We would not like to notice this again for 17 December though because it implies that it's coming back 18 to the Board. And I think you can let us determine if the 19 issues are sufficient enough to bring them back. 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman? 21 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yes. Ms. Riordan. 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: If I heard the staff a 23 little bit earlier, you actually have usually a lead time 24 to the 15 or 30 day period. So you're actually, Jed, 25 getting many more days than the 30 days. And hopefully PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 347 1 that would accommodate your organization and others that, 2 you know, want to work with the staff through the details. 3 So it seems to me a 30 day period is a very realistic 4 period because we know it's actually many more days than 5 appears. 6 MR. MANDEL: If I could, I certainly want to 7 acknowledge that  both with Mrs. Riordan's comment about 8 how the process really works and with the possibility of 9 that 15 day notice in fact being extended. It addresses a 10 significant part of my concerns, which is just having the 11 time to address complex issues. 12 But in response to Professor Friedman's comment, 13 I also want to remind you one of my concerns isn't just 14 having the time to respond to it, but having an 15 understanding of what this really means in an open process 16 that ultimately has everyone coming before a public 17 hearing and airing the issues. 18 The two proposals that came to the Board today 19 really did not spring out of the original staff proposal. 20 They were quite different. And I have particular concern, 21 as I said, about an averaging program, which may be the 22 solution to the world's problems, but we have not had the 23 chance to work it out. And it's very different than  24 and I should interrupt myself and say we've done I can't 25 remember how many 15 day notice issues with this Board and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 348 1 with this staff very successfully. It's a process that 2 works. 3 My concern is that we have not even begun to 4 think about it. This isn't like changing a 10 to an 8. 5 This is in developing a whole new program, that I think in 6 fairness should come back to all stakeholders to hear what 7 it is and comment on it to you. 8 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Short of that, what would be 9 optimum? 10 MR. MANDEL: Well, I thought the optimum sort of 11 middle ground, besides the additional time, would be to 12 have a real opportunity, if necessary, to avail ourselves 13 of the Board's hearing in December. And, again, I 14 understand  I saw Catherine's head move and I heard her 15 loudly before  but I understand it's not the staff's 16 goal. But I'm concerned that if the staff unilaterally 17 should decide it needs to come back to you, it takes a 18 while to get back on your agenda. We can always pull it 19 off easily. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: All right. But the other 21 thing, I think if you come back as an information item to 22 see whether we want to go ahead, that's one thing. But I 23 also share staff's concern that we've got to bring this to 24 some closure. And I think we're trying to meet you the 25 way  and I have a lot of faith, and also as long as I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 349 1 here working with staff to monitor what's going on and sit 2 in on some of these meetings, and my colleagues would be 3 happy to do that also, to make sure that if these are real 4 issues, then we will address them. 5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if I might, 6 and Mr. Mandel. 7 It seems to me you always have access to our 8 Chairman. And I'm certainly willing to defer to him and 9 his good judgment, that if at the end of all of this 10 period that there are some remaining issues, at some time 11 in the very near future we could maybe undertake some of 12 those. But I trust his judgment, and I think it would be 13 very appropriate for him to hear the issues if you feel 14 there are some left. You may be able to resolve all of 15 them in this almost 60 day period. 16 MR. MANDEL: Well, we hope that. And obviously, 17 not only with all the Board members, but in particular 18 with Dr. Lloyd, we do know that we have access and we 19 would take advantage of that. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And, again, I think it's our 21 obligation. And I think, as I said before, we've been 22 trying to work in good faith with the industry. And staff 23 has worked, I know, very hard and diligently. And as you 24 say, it seems a little bit ironic today when staff has 25 tried to incorporate some of those, people saying, well, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 350 1 we haven't got  and I understand the details. But I 2 think you've got to also recognize the tremendous effort 3 that's gone on, to recognize the concerns to ameliorate 4 those, to come from where I understood we were just 5 several months ago, to come this close and then have one 6 of the major manufacturers also say that they can live 7 with this provided some of those issues are addressed in 8 that time period. And, again, that's the same thing we'll 9 hold there as we work together. I think that's a 10 tremendous accomplishment and I think staff has done a 11 really excellent job. 12 MR. MANDEL: And obviously you should say that, 13 and I think I should take the time as well. Because in 14 the heat of trying to focus our concerns to the Board's 15 attention, sometimes we neglect to remind ourselves of how 16 far the staff has come. 17 And also the industry. The industry proposal 18 moved substantially from where we were. But I do want to 19 acknowledge the staff's hard work in working with us. I 20 wish we had had more time. I blame some of that on 21 ourselves in terms of working it. I'm hoping that we can 22 get closure and get closure quickly. 23 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And you understand, Jed, the 24 same as we were talking this morning or earlier this 25 afternoon, about the item we have next month going to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 351 1 South Coast and seeing all the pressures down there to do 2 something. I think we would be neglecting our duty to try 3 to keep these on track. But if there is again  those 4 concerns are not being worked out, then we will surely 5 take those in to account. 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There will also 7 be a vote on the Senate floor as to whether the bond 8 amendment in the VA HUD measure should pass. And I think 9 it's important for Congress to understand what the nature 10 of the rule adopted by the Air Resources Board is when 11 they're considering the necessity or not of overruling it 12 through that amendment. 13 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 14 Thank you very much, Jed. And, again, as always, 15 we appreciate your wisdom and comments there. And we look 16 forward to working with you and your colleagues. 17 MR. MANDEL: Thank you, Doctor, very much. Thank 18 you, Board members. 19 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. With that, I guess 20 it's the end of the public testimony. 21 Maybe here we'll have some discussion, and before 22 we go in to ex parte. 23 Yeah. Well, maybe I'll take ex partes. 24 First of all  well, first of all, I'd like to 25 close the record on this agenda item. However, the record PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 352 1 will be reopened when the 15 day notice of public 2 availability is issued. 3 And will that be 30 days? 4 Is that right? 5 GENERAL COUNSEL WALSH: Yes. 6 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thirty days. 7 So when the 30 day notice of public availability 8 is issued. Written or oral comments received after this 9 hearing date but before the 30 day notices are issued will 10 not be accepted as part of the official record on this 11 agenda item. 12 When the record is reopened for a 30 day comment 13 period, the public may submit written comments on the 14 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded 15 to in the final statement of reasons for the regulation. 16 And, again, just a reminder to my colleagues 17 about policy concerning ex parte communications. While we 18 may communicate off the record with an outside person 19 regarding Board rulemaking, we must disclose the names of 20 our contacts and the nature of contents on the record. 21 This requirement applies specifically to communications 22 which take place after notice of the Board hearing has 23 been published. 24 And, therefore, are there any communications we 25 need to disclose? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 353 1 Supervisor DeSaulnier. 2 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I had one. Tim 3 Flannegan representing the Outdoor Power Equipment 4 Institute met with me yesterday at my office in Concord, 5 California. The discussion was largely consistent with 6 the testimony from Mr. Guerry today. But it was related 7 specifically to the issues of safety. 8 That was it. 9 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Ms. D'Adamo, while you're  10 oh, okay. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Yes, on September 23rd I 12 had a conference call with Todd Campbell, Coalition for 13 Clean Air; Bonnie Holmes Gen, American Lung Association; 14 Diane Bailey, NRDC; Patricia Monahan, Union for Concerned 15 Scientists. 16 And the testimony was consistent with the 17 testimony by Dave Modisette this afternoon. 18 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 19 Mrs. Riordan. 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I also had a 21 meeting with Tim Flannegan representing the Outdoor Power 22 Equipment Institute in mid September. And the discussion 23 revolved around the safety issues and their submittal of a 24 plan to staff. I did not see that plan, nor was it 25 discussed. It was just simply mentioned. And he provided PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 354 1 me with two letters, one from the National Association of 2 Fire Marshals, which we have today, and also a letter from 3 the California Fire Chiefs Association. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Mr. Calhoun. 5 On September 27th  September 22nd and September 6 23rd I had discussions  telephone discussions with John 7 Dunlap, who was assisting Tim Flannegan on behalf of the 8 Outdoor Power Equipment Institute. 9 And August 25th, 28th, and September 4th, I had a 10 meeting with Kirk Markwald with the California 11 Environmental Associates representing Briggs and Stratton 12 to discuss this issue along the lines we had today, 13 discussing the desire of the industry to look at a 14 counterproposal and also to look at some of the  address 15 the travel issues. 16 And on September the 8th I had a meeting with 17 Kirk Markwald and Bob Wyman, Attorney at Law with Latham & 18 Watkins, representing Briggs and Stratton. And that was 19 also to address the issue of a counterproposal to address 20 the issue of travel. And it was after the introduction of 21 the bond amendment. 22 So with that, let's throw it open for discussion. 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if I might. 24 It seems to me that we had staff accommodate many of the 25 issues that were in the plan. Obviously details need to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 355 1 be worked out. I certainly would support the 30 day 2 review period in recognition of those items that need to 3 be discussed in final detail; and then certainly allow you 4 the discretion if you think this Board should ever be 5 involved with any of the issues following that 6 approximately 60 day period. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Other comments? 8 Ms. D'Adamo. 9 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Oh, I'm sorry. I took it 10 to mean it was a motion. I was just going to add to it. 11 No comments. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Okay. Please do. 13 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: If that could be offered 14 as a motion  15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'll put that in the form 16 of a motion. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO:  for the resolution 18 that's before us with that addition. 19 Then in addition, I'd like to make certain that 20 the zero emission component is reviewed by staff with 21 regard to a number of different options, incentive or a 22 fleet concept or other mechanisms, and that staff report 23 back to the Board. I don't recall if we  24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Six months. 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Six months? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 356 1 All right. Within six months. 2 With that, I'd second it. 3 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Sounds good. 4 So if there's no other discussion, again I  5 Professor Friedman. 6 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: Just to make the 7 record clear. I don't think that  we're acting on this 8 proposal and resolution, and then as a follow on we're 9 asking the staff to look in to this other. I don't want 10 to  this is not part of this action. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: No. 12 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No, no, no, no. 13 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: It's related 14 obviously. 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Yeah, that's right. 16 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: It's not dependent 17 on it and it's not part of it so that  18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you for 19 clarifying that. 20 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: And, again, I think it's  21 you know, as I said earlier, this puts us in a somewhat 22 uncomfortable position. But I feel we have to bring this 23 to conclusion and send a signal. 24 BOARD MEMBER HUGH FRIEDMAN: I just wanted to add 25 that I think we are scrambling desperately to find every PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 357 1 pound, every ounce, every ton of emission reduction in 2 this state. We're seeing that we're losing ground in 3 South Coast and elsewhere. We have a federal mandate. We 4 have our own needs for the health of people. And we have 5 obviously a direct legitimate and important interest in 6 reducing emissions. And this is another area where we can 7 reduce them, and we've known that for a long time. And 8 we've tried to work out a reasonable, rational plan for 9 it. 10 The original proposal met with opposition from 11 those who would be regulated, and they responded. And 12 they proposed alternatives, which I understand we have 13 pretty much accepted as alternatives, which appear to me 14 to respond to and adequately address and take care of the 15 principal concerns that were raised in terms of safety on 16 the temperature issue, the exhaust reductions. 17 And at the same time we get a bigger  as much a 18 bang or bigger bang through increasing the evaporative 19 emissions, which was part of the industry's proposal as I 20 understand it, including Briggs and Stratton and others. 21 So, again, I think this is a collaborative 22 effort. And there are details to be ironed out, 23 clarifications to be made that are sought by industry. 24 And that's the reason we have this 15 or now 30 day 25 process for notice. And I feel we're doing what we need PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 358 1 to do. It's important that we do it for a lot of reasons. 2 And so I  if it was seconded, I third it. If 3 not, I'm ready to vote. 4 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 5 And Supervisor DeSaulnier. 6 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Just briefly. I do 7 think it's important, although it's separate, to reiterate 8 going after the zero. There's lots of potential there. 9 And all kidding aside, I think staff can come up with 10 something. 11 I also wanted to, in terms of something  in 12 regards to Jed's comments. I remember last time the 13 Board, and some of us who were here, dealt with this 14 source and it was very contentious. And I remember a 15 quote in the Wall Street Journal about that directed at 16 the manufacturers. And unfortunately those  and some of 17 my colleagues remember  unfortunately broke in to the 18 Japanese manufacturers and the American manufacturers. 19 And the quote in the Journal story was critical 20 of the American manufacturers  and I can't remember who 21 said it, it wasn't me, I wish I had  was that Japanese 22 companies had spent more time on research and development 23 and the American companies, unfortunately, spent too much 24 time on lawyers and lobbyists. And I think that's changed 25 dramatically this time. We obviously have one unfortunate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 359 1 situation. But I did want to acknowledge to Jed that I 2 think the industry has come a long way and hopefully we 3 can close those last remaining obstacles. 4 And then, lastly, I can't help but make a comment 5 about how many times I've heard the word " recall" in the 6 last couple hours. And it's nice to hear it in a 7 different context. Although I can't help but say it may 8 be harder to recall one lawnmower than it is to recall the 9 Governor of California. 10 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 11 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Well, I think we need to fix 12 that. And so I will definitely  13 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Do we have the 14 authority? 15 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: No, I would definitely like 16 on the lawnmower side  I think included in our 17 resolution I would like to follow up my earlier comments 18 about looking at an effective program to monitor end use 19 emissions. And that's enough said. So we may have 20 opportunities there. 21 So with that I think  no more comments. I'd 22 ask for a vote. We've got the resolution seconder. 23 All in favor say aye. 24 ( Ayes.) 25 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Anyone against? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345 _ 360 1 No. 2 Thank you. 3 And, again, thank you very much, staff, for a 4 great job as usual there. And I really appreciate it very 5 much. 6 And thank you for coming  for the industry 7 coming to testify. Hopefully we can get to a better spot. 8 But I think we've come a long way to answer that. 9 And, Jed, we can assure you you will have  we 10 can keep you busy between now and Christmas. 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: All right, Jed. We've got 12 a  you know, so 60 days from today, figure that all out. 13 You'll be here at the right time. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: We'll take just a five minute 15 break. And then we'll go in to the last item for the day. 16 ( Thereupon a recess was taken.) 17 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Final item on today's agenda 18 is 03 7 4, informational report on supplementary 19 activities related to the zero emission vehicle Program. 20 When we adopted modifications to the ZEV program 21 in April of this year, we made difficult decisions about 22 the direction and structure of the regulation. By the end 23 of the hearing I believe this Board crafted a delicate 24 balance that takes advantage of the strides made by 25 extremely clean gasoline vehicles and the full potential PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION ( 916) 362 2345


levels (1:26:5100 for the concentration ratio of the dose levels versus
1:12:2300 for the ratio of the penetration values).

This study in the rat is unacceptable/guideline and does not satisfy the
guideline requirement for a dermal penetration study (870.7600) in rats.
 Major deficiencies include uncertainty in the ability of the laboratory
to perform the experiment, and only one exposure duration was tested (6
hours), despite minimum Guideline recommendations for durations of 1,
10, and 24 hours.  See “Study Deficiencies” for listing of numerous
minor deficiencies.

STUDY TYPE:	In Vitro Dermal Penetration Study – Rat and Human
OPPTS 870.7600 [§85-2]; OECD none.

CITATION:	Hassler, S. (2003) Difenoconazole 250 EC (A7402G): The
percutaneous penetration of [Triazole-U-14C] CGA 169374 formulated as
Score® 250 EC (A-7402G) through rat and human split-thickness skin
membranes (in vitro). Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Health
Assessment/Animal Metabolism CH-402 Basel, Switzerland. Syngenta Number
T002730-06, April 9, 2003. MRID 46950332. Unpublished.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  In an in vitro percutaneous penetration study (MRID
46950332), [Triazole–U-14C] CGA 169374 (98% a.i., batch number 50.2-1)
mixed with nonradiolabeled CGA 169374 (batch number AMS 255/3 containing
99.3% a.i.) formulated as SCORE 250® (A-7402) was applied to skin
membranes prepared from rat [male HanBrl: WIST (SPF)] and human
(cadaver) abdominal skin. Percutaneous absorption at low, mid, and high
doses of 0.5, 12.5, or 2500 µg/cm2 (actual applied doses of 0.5, 12, or
2345 µg/cm2) was assessed over 24 hours.

Results clearly indicate that transfer of [Triazole–U-14C] CGA 169374
across skin membrane was notably greater for the rat skin membrane than
for human skin membrane as shown by flux values that were 10-, 12-, and
32-fold greater for the low, mid, and high concentrations, respectively.
 A concentration-dependent absorption was also indicated by greater flux
values with increasing concentration: flux values at the low, mid, and
high doses for the rat skin membranes were 0.020, 0.455, and 26.2
ug/cm2, respectively, and for human skin membranes were 0.002, 0.037,
and 0.822 ug/cm2, respectively.  The increasing flux values resulted in
greater absolute amounts of test article being transferred across the
skin membranes with increasing concentration: values at the low, mid,
and high doses for the rat skin membranes were 0.35, 7.7, and 539.2
ug/cm2, respectively, and for human skin membranes were 0.04, 0.84, and
15.6 ug/cm2, respectively.  However, the percutaneous absorption was
decreased, indicating saturated kinetics (absorption values at the low,
mid, and high doses expressed as percent of applied dose for the rat
skin membranes were 71%, 64%, and 23%, respectively, and for human skin
membranes were 8%, 7%, and 0.7%, respectively).

This in vitro percutaneous absorption study in the rat is
acceptable/nonguideline, but does not satisfy the guideline requirement
for a dermal penetration study (870.7600) in rats. The study is a
specialty study and was designed to provide only supplemental
information to the OPPTS 870.7600 requirement.  Results of this study
provide information on the differences in dermal absorption between rat
and human skin membranes.

STUDY TYPE: In vitro Mammalian Cytogenetics (chromosomal aberrations)
assay in Chinese hamster CHO cells; OPPTS 870.5375 [§84-2]; OECD 473

CITATION:	Lloyd, M. (2001) Difenoconazole Technical: Induction of
chromosome aberrations in cultured Chinese hamster ovary (CHO)cells.
Covance Laboratories Ltd., Otley Road, Harrogate, North Yorkshire HG3
1PY, England. Laboratory Project ID: Covance Number 252/293, Syngenta
Number T002874-06, December 11, 2001. MRID 46950319. Unpublished

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  In a mammalian cell cytogenetics assay (Chromosomal
aberrations) (MRID 46950319), Chinese hamster CHO cells in culture were
exposed to CGA 169374 Technical (94.3% w/w, Lot No. WM806228) in DMSO
for three hours at concentrations of 0, 21.99, 27.49, or 34.36 µg/mL
without metabolic activation (S9-mix) and at concentrations of 0, 34.36,
53.69 or 67.11 µg/mL with S9-mix.  Cells were harvested 17 hours
following the end of exposure.  Cells were exposed in a second
confirmatory study for three hours at concentrations of 0, 21.99, 27.49
or 34.36 µg/mL without S9-mix and for three hours at concentrations of
0, 34.36, 53.69, 67.11 or 83.89 µg/mL with S9-mix.  Cells were
harvested 17 hours following exposure.  Cells were evaluated for the
presence of structural chromosomal aberrations and for numerical
aberrations (polyploidy, endoreduplication and hyperploidy).  The
S9-fraction was obtained from Aroclor 1254 induced male Sprague-Dawley
rat liver.

CGA 169374 Technical was tested up to cytotoxic concentrations as
evidenced by a dose-related reduction in mitotic activity seen with and
without S9-mix.  There was a statistically significant increase in the
percentage of cells with structural chromosomal aberrations at a CGA
169374 Technical concentration of 34.36 µg/mL without S9-mix in the
first study.  The slides were rescored to determine if aberrations at
the fragile X site were present.  Aberrations at the fragile X site are
not likely relevant to clastogenicity.  Aberrations at the fragile X
site were not found but the values obtained on rescoring were within the
historical solvent control range.  There was no clear reason given why
the percent of aberrant cells was lower when the slides were rescored.
Possibly the distribution of cells on the slides was uneven. The
increase at this dose without S9-mix was not seen in the confirmatory
assay and thus the increase was not considered biologically significant.
 A statistically significant increase in the percent of aberrant cells
was seen in the first study at 67.11 µg/mL with S9-mix.  The
statistical significance remained upon rescoring and all values exceeded
the historical solvent control range.  No statistically significant
increase was seen at this or a higher concentration in the confirmatory
study with S9-mix.  The failure to see a significant increase in the
percent of aberrant cells in the confirmatory study makes the results
equivocal.  The solvent and positive controls (4-Nitroquinoline 1-oxide
without S9-mix and cyclophosphamide with S9-mix) induced the appropriate
responses.  There was evidence of a weak induction of structural
chromosomal aberrations over background in the presence of S9-mix.

This study is classified as Acceptable/Guideline and satisfies the
guideline requirement for OPPTS 870.5375; OECD 473 for in vitro
cytogenetic mutagenicity data.

STUDY TYPE:	In vitro Mammalian Cytogenetics (chromosomal aberrations)
assay in Chinese hamster CHO cells; OPPTS 870.5375 [§84-2]; OECD 473

CITATION:	Ogorek, B. (2001) Difenoconazole Technical: Cytogenetic test
on Chinese hamster cells in vitro. Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Health
Assessment 2 Stein/Genetic Toxicology, CH-4332 Stein, Switzerland.
Laboratory Project ID: Syngenta AG Test Number 20013013, Syngenta Number
T002875-06, December 3, 2001. MRID 46950321. Unpublished

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  In a mammalian cell cytogenetics assay (Chromosomal
aberrations) (MRID 46950321), Chinese hamster CHO cells in culture were
exposed to CGA 169374 Technical (94.3% w/w, Lot No. WM806228) in DMSO
for three hours at concentrations of 0, 26.3, 39.5 or 59.3 µg/mL
without metabolic activation (S9-mix) and at concentrations of 0, 11.7
or 17.6 µg/mL with S9-mix.  Cells were harvested 18 hours following the
end of exposure.  Cells were exposed in a second confirmatory study for
21 hours at concentrations of 0, 2.3, 5.2 or 11.7 µg/mL without S9-mix
and for three hours at concentrations of 0, 7.8, 11.7 or 17.6 µg/mL
with S9-mix.  Cells were harvested immediately following the 21-hour
exposure and 18 hours after the three-hour exposure.  Cells were
evaluated for the presence of structural chromosomal aberrations and for
polyploidy.  The S9-fraction was obtained from Aroclor 1254 induced male
HanIbm:WIST(SPF) rat liver.

CGA 169374 Technical was tested up to cytotoxic concentrations as
evidenced by a dose-related reduction in mitotic activity seen with and
without S9-mix.  There was a statistically significant increase in the
percentage of CHO cells with structural chromosomal aberrations at a CGA
169374 Technical concentration of 59.3 µg/mL without S9-mix in the
original study when aberrations at the fragile X site were included but
not when they were excluded.  Aberrations at the fragile X site are not
likely relevant to clastogenicity.  No statistically significant
increase in the percent of aberrant cells was seen in the original study
with S9-mix.  An increase in the percent of aberrant cells was seen in
the confirmatory study at 17.6 µg/mL with S9-mix and the increase was
statistically significant (p≤0.001) when aberrations at the fragile X
site were excluded.  The value of 6.5% aberrant cells exceeded the value
of >6% set as a criterion for a positive effect in the testing
laboratory.  The failure to see a significant increase in the percent of
aberrant cells in the original study makes the results equivocal.  No
statistically significant increase in the percentage of aberrant cells
was seen at any of the three test material concentrations without S9-mix
in the confirmatory study.  The solvent and positive controls (Mitomycin
C without S9-mix and Cyclophosphamide with S9-mix) induced the
appropriate responses.  There was evidence of a weak induction of
structural chromosomal aberrations over background.

This study is classified as Acceptable/Guideline and satisfies the
guideline requirement for OPPTS 870.5375; OECD 473 for in vitro
cytogenetic mutagenicity data.

STUDY TYPE:	In vitro Mammalian Cytogenetics (chromosomal aberrations)
assay in human lymphocytes; OPPTS 870.5375 [§84-2]; OECD 473

CITATION:	Fox, V. (2001) Difenoconazole Technical: In vitro cytogenetic
assay in human lymphocytes. Central Toxicology Laboratory, Alderley
Park/Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK SK10 4TJ. Laboratory Project ID: CTL
Number SV1090, Syngenta Number T002876-06, August 29, 2001. MRID
46950323. Unpublished

sted immediately following the 20-hour exposure and 17 hours after the
three-hour exposure.  Cells were evaluated for the presence of
structural chromosomal aberrations.  The S9-fraction was obtained from
Phenobarbital + β-naphthoflavone induced male Sprague-Dawley rat liver.

CGA 169374 Technical was tested up to cytotoxic concentrations as
evidenced by a dose-related reduction in mitotic activity seen with and
without S9-mix.  No statistically significant increases in the
percentage of cells with structural aberrations, excluding gaps, over
the solvent control values were seen at any test material concentration
with or without S9-mix in the first experiment or without S9-mix in the
second experiment.  A statistically significant increase over the
solvent control value was seen at 5µg/mL with S9-mix in the second
experiment; however, the increase was not considered biologically
significant because the value (4.00%) was within the historical solvent
control range, the values at the two higher concentrations were not
significantly increased and no increase was seen in the first
experiment. The solvent and positive controls (Mitomycin C without
S9-mix and Cyclophosphamide with S9-mix) induced the appropriate
responses.  There was no evidence of structural chromosomal aberrations
induced over background.

This study is classified as Acceptable/Guideline and satisfies the
guideline requirement for OPPTS 870.5375; OECD 473 for in vitro
cytogenetic mutagenicity data.

DIFENOCONAZOLE METABOLITES:

STUDY TYPE:	In vitro Bacterial Gene Mutation (Bacterial system,
Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli)/ mammalian activation gene
mutation assay; OPPTS 870.5100 [§84-2]; OECD 471 (formerly OECD 471
& 472).

CITATION:	Nakajima, M. (1991) CGA189138 (metabolite of difenoconazole):
reverse mutation assay of CGA189138. Biosafety Research Center; Foods,
Drugs and Pesticides (An-Pyo Center); 582-2, Arahama Shioshinden;
Fukude-Cho Iwata-Gun.; Shizuoka 437-12; Japan. Laboratory Project ID:
BRC Number 1809, October 21, 1991.  MRID 46950314.  Unpublished.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  In a reverse gene mutation assay in bacteria (MRID
46950314), strains TA98, TA100, TA1535 and TA1537 of S. typhimurium and
strain WP2 uvrA of E. coli were exposed to CGA-189138, a metabolite of
difenoconazole, (97.8% a.i., lot number 910806) dissolved in DMSO in two
independent assays using a 20-minute preincubation procedure and
duplicate plating. In the first mutagenicity assay, which was
alternatively called the pilot assay and the dose-finding assay,
concentrations of 0, 51.2, 128, 320, 800, 2000 or 5000 µg/plate were
tested with and without S9-mix. In the second assay, which was called
the main assay, concentrations of 0, 31.3, 62.5, 125, 250, 500 or 1000
µg/plate were tested in the absence of S9-mix in strains TA100 and
TA1537 and in the presence of S9-mix in all Salmonella strains;
concentrations of 0, 62.5, 125, 250, 500, 1000 or 2000 µg/plate were
tested in the absence of S9-mix in strains TA1535, WP2 uvrA and TA98 and
in the presence of S9-mix in strain WP2 uvrA. The S9 fraction was
obtained from phenobarbital and 5,6-benzoflavone-induced male
Sprague-Dawley rat liver.

„

؀„

¥

Ì

Ï

Ð

ð

:

“

4

5

6

7

8

9

:

;

<

X

Y

Z

[

^

_

q

r

s

Ž

‘

’

“

”

•

±

²

³

´

·

¸

Ð

Ñ

Ò

ì

í

î

ï

ð

ñ

ò

ó

ô

“

ò

j

옍)

攃昀Ĵ

ꐔ:

愀Ĥ

愀Ĥ

愀Ĥ

愀Ĥ

愀Ĥ

愀Ĥ

혈Fᴃ䀀踋괗$⌆

ἆ

혈Fᴃ䀀踋괗$⌆

 ἆ

혈Fᴃ䀀踋괗$⌆

 ἆ

葞᎞葠

혈Fᴃ䀀踋괗$⌆

 ἆ

혈Fᴃ䀀踋괗$⌆

 ἆ

혈Fᴃ䀀踋괗$⌆

 ἆ

혈Fᴃ䀀踋괗$⌆

 ἆ

hü

혈Fᴃ䀀踋괗$⌆

 ἆ

혈Fᴃ䀀踋괗$⌆

ἆ

õå×õå×õå×õËõËõ½ª½¦õå×õå×õå×õËõËõ½ª½õ
¦õ õ •‹ •‹ •‹õ „

䀀Ȧ

옍)

옍)

ꐔ:

萎ﾦ葝ﾦ

鐇ƞ혈r鐅㣿瀍ȑ븖퐝耥ꐆ

à

옍

ꐔ:

옍

*̀Ĥ옍)

*̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ĥ(̀Ĥ옍)

&

愀Ĥ*̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ĥ*̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ĥ*̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ĥ*̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ĥ*̀Ĥ옍)

	਀&䘋

ꐔ:

态ú	਀&䘋

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

š

䀀Ħ摧䓛

š

@

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

␅؁Ĥ옍)

"̀Ĥ␅؁Ĥ옍)

š

@

@

$

@

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

@

$

@

$

@

kd

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

@

$

@

@

$

@

@

@

@

@

@

$

@

@

$

@

@

@

$

@

@

$

@

@

@

@

$

@

@

$

@

@

@

@

$

@

@

$

@

@

@

$

@

@

@

$

@

@

@

$

@

š

옍

é

ê

0

1

萏֠萑褐葞֠葠褐

:`

u

Þ

ß

ó

ô

ssay, such precipitation was observed only in the presence of S9-mix and
at the highest concentration tested in strain WP2 uvrA. The number of
revertants per plate was not increased over the concurrent solvent
control value at any test material concentration, with or without
S9-mix, in any tester strain. The solvent and positive controls induced
the appropriate responses in the corresponding strains. There was no
evidence of induced mutant colonies over background.

This study is classified as Unacceptable/Guideline and does not
satisfies the requirements for Test Guideline OPPTS 870.5100; OECD 471
for in vitro mutagenicity (bacterial reverse gene mutation) data.  Five
strains of S. typhimurium were not used in the assay.  The study can not
be upgraded.

STUDY TYPE:	In vitro Bacterial Gene Mutation (Bacterial system,
Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli)/ mammalian activation gene
mutation assay; OPPTS 870.5100 [§84-2]; OECD 471 (formerly OECD 471
& 472).

CITATION:	Nakajima, M. (1991) CGA205374 (metabolite of difenoconazole):
reverse mutation assay of CGA205374. Biosafety Research Center; Foods,
Drugs and Pesticides (An-Pyo Center); 582-2, Arahama Shioshinden;
Fukude-Cho Iwata-Gun.; Shizuoka 437-12; Japan. Laboratory Project ID:
BRC Number 1746, August 14, 1991.  MRID 46950315.  Unpublished.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  In a reverse gene mutation assay in bacteria (MRID
46950315), strains TA98, TA100, TA1535 and TA1537 of S. typhimurium and
strain WP2 uvrA of E. coli were exposed to CGA-205374, a metabolite of
difenoconazole, (99.3% a.i., lot number 9106054) dissolved in DMSO in
two independent assays using a 20-minute preincubation procedure and
duplicate plating. In the first mutagenicity assay, which was
alternatively called the pilot assay and the dose-finding assay,
concentrations of 0, 51.2, 128, 320, 800, 2000 or 5000 µg/plate were
tested with and without S9-mix. In the second assay, which was called
the main assay, concentrations of 0, 156, 313, 625, 1250, 2500 or 5000
µg/plate were tested with and without S9-mix. The S9 fraction was
obtained from phenobarbital and 5,6-benzoflavone-induced male
Sprague-Dawley rat liver.

CGA-205374 was tested at concentrations up to the limit concentration
for the assay, but the effective concentrations tested were limited by
insolubility. Evidence of cytotoxicity, which was collected by
stereomicroscopic examination of the bacterial lawns, was seen only in
strain TA1537 at the maximum concentration tested, and then only in the
main assay in the presence of S9-mix. The test material was quite
insoluble, with cloudiness of the preincubation mixture being observed
even at 128 µg/plate. The white powdery precipitate of the test
material was observed on the surface of the agar plates at the time of
colony counting at concentrations of 320 µg/plate and higher in the
pilot assay in the absence of S9-mix and at concentrations of 800
µg/plate and higher in the presence of S9-mix.  In the main assay, this
precipitate was noted at concentrations of 313 µg/plate and higher both
in the presence and absence of S9-mix. This precipitate became heavy
enough to make it difficult to observe the bacterial lawn at
concentrations of 1250 µg/plate or higher in the absence of S9-mix and
at the concentration of 5000 µg/plate in the presence of S9-mix. The
number of revertants per plate was not increased over the concurrent
solvent control value at any test material concentration, with or
without S9-mix, in any tester strain. The solvent and positive controls
induced the appropriate responses in the corresponding strains. There
was no evidence of induced mutant colonies over background.

This study is classified as Unacceptable/Guideline and does not
satisfies the requirements for Test Guideline OPPTS 870.5100; OECD 471
for in vitro mutagenicity (bacterial reverse gene mutation) data.  Five
strains of S. typhimurium were not used in the assay.  The study can not
be upgraded.

STUDY TYPE:	In vitro Bacterial Gene Mutation (Bacterial system,
Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli)/ mammalian activation gene
mutation assay; OPPTS 870.5100 [§84-2]; OECD 471 (formerly OECD 471
& 472).

CITATION:	Nakajima, M. (1991) CGA205375 (metabolite of difenoconazole):
reverse mutation assay of CGA205375. Biosafety Research Center; Foods,
Drugs and Pesticides (An-Pyo Center); 582-2, Arahama Shioshinden;
Fukude-Cho Iwata-Gun.; Shizuoka 437-12; Japan. Laboratory Project ID:
BRC Number 1747, August 14, 1991.  MRID 46950317.  Unpublished.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  In a reverse gene mutation assay in bacteria (MRID
46950317), strains TA98, TA100, TA1535 and TA1537 of S. typhimurium and
strain WP2 uvrA of E. coli were exposed to CGA-205375, a metabolite of
difenoconazole, (99.8% a.i., lot number 9106055) dissolved in DMSO in
two independent assays using a 20-minute preincubation procedure and
duplicate plating. In the first mutagenicity assay, which was
alternatively called the pilot assay and the dose-finding assay,
concentrations of 0, 51.2, 128, 320, 800, 2000 or 5000 µg/plate were
tested with and without S9-mix. In the second assay, which was called
the main assay, concentrations of 0, 2.50, 5.00, 10.0, 20.0, 40.0 or
80.0 µg/plate were tested in the absence of S9-mix in all strains;
concentrations of 0, 5.00, 10.0, 20.0, 40.0, 80.0 or 160 µg/plate were
tested in the presence of S9-mix in strains TA100 and TA1535;
concentrations of 0, 10.0, 20.0, 40.0, 80.0, 160 or 320 µg/plate were
tested in the presence of S9-mix in strains WP2 uvrA and TA1537; and
concentrations of 0, 2.50, 5.00, 10.0, 20.0, 40.0, or 80.0 µg/plate
were tested in the presence of S9-mix in strain TA98. The S9 fraction
was obtained from phenobarbital and 5,6-benzoflavone-induced male
Sprague-Dawley rat liver.

CGA-205375 was tested at concentrations up to the limit concentration
for the assay in the pilot assay. Most of the concentrations in that
assay showed cytotoxicity and some of the higher ones also showed
insolubility. Some of the higher concentrations in the main assay, which
used much lower concentrations, also showed cytotoxicity. In the absence
of S9-mix in the pilot assay, the test material was cytotoxic, as judged
by stereomicroscopic examination of the bacterial lawns, at all
concentrations in strains TA100 and TA1537 and at concentrations of 128
µg/plate and higher in strains TA1535, WP2 uvrA and TA98. In the
presence of S9-mix in the pilot assay, the test material was cytotoxic
at all tested concentrations in strain TA98, at concentrations of 128
µg/plate and higher in strains TA100 and TA1535, and at concentrations
of 320 µg/plate and higher in strains WP2 uvrA and TA1537. In the
absence of S9-mix in the main assay, the test material was cytotoxic at
concentrations of 40.0 µg/plate and higher in strain TA100 and at the
highest tested concentration in the other strains. In the presence of
S9-mix in the main assay, the test material was cytotoxic at
concentrations of 40.0 µg/plate and higher in strain TA98, at
concentrations of 80.0 µg/plate and higher in strain TA100, at
concentrations of 160 µg/plate and higher in strain TA1537 and at the
maximum concentrations tested in strains TA1535 and WP2 uvrA. At
cytotoxic concentrations there was often also a marked decrease in the
number of revertant colonies found. Because cytotoxicity was excessive
at most concentrations, the pilot assay provided only slight useful
information on mutagenesis in most strains. In the pilot assay, the
needle crystalline precipitate of the test material was observed on the
surface of the agar plates at the time of colony counting at
concentrations of 800 µg/plate and above in the absence of S9-mix and
at concentrations of 2,000 µg/plate and above in the presence of
S9-mix. No precipitation was observed at any of the much lower
concentrations tested in the main assay. The number of revertants per
plate was not increased over the concurrent solvent control value at any
test material concentration, with or without S9-mix, in any tester
strain. The solvent and positive controls induced the appropriate
responses in the corresponding strains. There was no evidence of induced
mutant colonies over background.

This study is classified as Unacceptable/Guideline and does not
satisfies the requirements for Test Guideline OPPTS 870.5100; OECD 471
for in vitro mutagenicity (bacterial reverse gene mutation) data.  Five
strains of S. typhimurium were not used in the assay.  The study can not
be upgraded.

Appendix 3.  Proposed Metabolic Pathway for difenoconazole in Rats

 Appendix 4   Environmental Fate Degradates

Table 13.0c.  Summary of Difenoconazole Major Degradates and Maximum
Percent Formation Observed in the Laboratory and Field Studies.

Degradate 1 	Max Degradate Concentration (% of applied) and Time (days)
to Max Concentration	Analyzed Degradates

	Lab Accumulation

in Fish	Aqueous Photolysis 2,3,4

Aerobic Soil	Anaerobic Aquatic	Aerobic Aquatic

TFD  5	Ground

Water

CGA 205375 	51-64%	3.8% (4) 	14.8% (360)*	12.6% (175)	11.6% (90)	4.5%
(121)A

5.3% (364)B

3.5% (123)C

6.9% (182) D

No study

CGA 205374

1.1% (14)	2.1 % (272)	0.8% (247)

	CGA 71019

	20.6% (190) 	35.9% (350)*

	CGA-142856

41.8% (30)4*

	CGA-107069/

CGA-71019

12.27% (30) 4*

12.9% (9) 4

	1 Refer to Table I-2 for name and structure; 2 Difenoconazole was
stable under hydrolysis; 3 No meaningful amount of degradates were
formed in soil

≤ 0.2% and only single replicates); 4 In sterile natural water (MRID
46950105 and MRID 42245128); 5 % of the total applied difenoconazole,
based on

four applications; A under bare soil conditions in GA (MRID 46950126); B
under potato production condition in ND (MRID 46950129); C under a bare
plot of loam soil

in CA (MRID 46950129); D in CA bare loamy sand soil (MRID 42245140); and
* The max concentration was observed in the last sampling interval.

Table 13.0d.  Chemical Structures of Difenoconazole and Degradation
Products Detected in Submitted Environmental Fate Studies.

Name(s)	Structure	Known Chemical and Fate Parameters

CGA-169374

Difenoconazole

1-[2-[2-Chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmeth
yl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole.

1-[[2-[2-Chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]me
thyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole.

1-(2-[4-(4-Chlorophenyoxy)-2-chlorophenyl-(4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl)-m
ethyl])-1H-1,2,4-triazole.

CAS #: 119446-68-3

	CGA-205374 [CGA-176459]

1-[2-Chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)-phenyl]-2-[1,2,4]triazol-1-yl-ethanone

1-[2-Chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-2-(1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)-ethanon
e

CAS #: 136815-80-0

	CGA-205375 [CGA-211391]

1-[2-Chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)-phenyl]-2-[1,2,4]triazol-1-yl-ethanol

alpha-[2-Chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol.

CAS #: 117018-19-6

	Mobility data available

CGA-142856

[1,2,4]Triazol-1-yl-acetic acid

1H-1,2,4-Triazole-1-acetic acid.

CAS #: 28711-29-7		DW assessment completed in 2006

CGⵁㄷ㄰ഹㄍ䠭⠭ⰱⰲ⤴吭楲穡汯ㄍⵈⰱⰲⴴ牔慩潺
敬㐍ⵈㅛ㈬㐬呝楲穡汯൥䅃⁓㨣㈠㠸㠭ⴸܰ܁坄愠獳獥
浳湥⁴潣灭敬整湩㈠〰ܶ䌇䅇ㄭ㜰㘰ഹㄍ䠭⠭ⰱⰲ⤴
吭楲穡汯ⵥⴱ敭桴湡汯ഠ䅃⁓㨣㜠㈴㔰㠭ⴲܶ܁܇܇܇䝃
ⵁ㌱〱㌱഍ⴲ流湩ⵯⴳㅛ㈬㐬瑝楲穡汯ㄭ礭⵬牰灯潩楮
捡摩

D

Âÿü

$

Âÿü

Âÿü

Âÿü

kd

Âÿü

Âÿü

Âÿü

alpha-Amino-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-propanoic acid

 PAGE

 of    NUMPAGES \* arabic \* MERGEFORMAT  69

Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  69

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  66  of   NUMPAGES  69


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11774-11775]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4712]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2935-000]

Paulding Wind Farm II LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Paulding Wind Farm II LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 15, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 23, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4712 Filed 3-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


0154 04 010\ HON storage vessel memo. doc 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Randy McDonald, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS FROM: Roy Oommen, Eastern Research Group ( ERG), Morrisville DATE: June 9, 2006 SUBJECT: Storage Vessel Emission Reduction and Control Cost Estimates 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to present the analyses used to estimate the hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions, emission reductions, and costs associated with controlling uncontrolled storage vessels at hazardous organic NESHAP ( HON) sources. These uncontrolled storage vessels are classified in the HON regulation as Group 2 storage vessels. Section 2 presents the data used to estimate baseline emissions from uncontrolled storage vessels. Section 3 presents the methodologies used to estimate emission reductions and control costs.

2.0 BASELINE DATA Baseline storage vessel data on existing HON facilities were collected by the American Chemistry Council ( ACC) through a voluntary survey and provided to EPA. The ACC data contained site specific information for the base year 1999 for 104 of the 238 existing HON facilities. Information from all the facilities was then combined into one database. The data fields in the database are presented in Table 2 1.

The ACC survey requested that storage vessel information be identified as either controlled or uncontrolled. However, many respondents did not provide this information. Such storage vessels were grouped into a third category, unspecified storage vessels. 0154 04 010\ HON storage vessel memo. doc 2 Table 2 1. Data Fields in Storage Vessels Database Source ID HON Facility ID Chemical Manufacturing Process Unit ID ( CMPU_ ID)

Latitude Longitude Emission Type HAP Name CAS Number Emission Rate ( kg/ yr)

Stack Height 3.0 EMISSION REDUCTION AND CONTROL COST ESTIMATES For this analysis, both uncontrolled storage vessels and unspecified storage vessels were categorized as Group 2. This assumption regarding the unspecified vessels provides the most conservative estimate of costs. Additionally, this analysis was conducted only for storage vessels that contained at least one HAP with a high lifetime cancer risk, as well as other specific pollutants of interest. Collectively, these HAP are referred as HAPs listed in Table 38 of the proposed rule.

Each storage vessel was identified based on the process unit associated with it, as well as by unique longitude and latitude, stack height, and pollutants emitted. For this analysis all Group 2 tanks were assumed to be fixed roof and each storage vessel was assumed to store only 1 HAP.

3.1 Emission Reductions Emission reductions were calculated assuming that each Group 2 storage vessel would be controlled by converting the fixed roof tank to an internal floating roof tank. This was one of the control methods used in the HON and achieves 95 percent reduction in emissions. The annual 0154 04 010\ HON storage vessel memo. doc 3 emission reductions from converting each Group 2 storage vessel was calculated using the following equations:

ER = ( 0.95)(( EHAP)( H)( 1/ 1000)

where:

° ER is the emission reduction of the HAP in the storage vessel ( Megagrams per year), ° EHAP is the storage vessel HAP emission rate ( kilograms per hour), and ° H is the hours of operation per year.

3.2 Cost Capital and annual cost estimates were calculated using information in previous EPA studies. 1,2 Based on the studies the elements of total capital investment that were calculated are capital cost of the conversion to internal floating roof, degassing and cleaning costs, and waste disposal costs:

TCI = Cconversion + Cwaste + Cdegas/ clean where:

° TCI is the total capital investment in $, ° Cconversion is the cost of converting fixed roof tanks to internal floating roof tanks in $, ° Cwaste is the cost of waste disposal in $, and ° Cdegas/ clean is the cost of degassing and cleaning the fixed roof tank in $.

The cost of converting the tank was calculated using the following equation2:

Cconversion = [ 9.46 ( D) 2 + 40,103] ( CE2003/ CE1991)

where:

° D is the diameter of the tank in feet, ° CE2003 is the chemical engineering cost index for 2003 ( 402), and ° CE1991 is the chemical engineering cost index for 1991, the base year of the cost algorithm ( 361.3).

The diameter of the tank was not provided in the survey responses. This value was obtained from a previous EPA document that related tank diameter and volume to various tank heights. 1 Each tank height from the survey responses was matched to the closest tank height in the EPA study. 0154 04 010\ HON storage vessel memo. doc 4 A previous EPA document provided a relationship between the waste disposal, and degassing and cleaning costs to volume of the tank. 1,2 These costs are calculated using the following equations:

Cwaste = 0.075 * V Cdegas/ clean = 0.1 * V Total annual costs were calculated from capital recovery costs and indirect costs ( taxes,

insurance, and administrative costs), direct costs ( maintenance and inspection costs), and recovery credits. 2 TAC = Capital Recovery Costs + Indirect Costs + Direct Costs   Recovery credits The capital recovery costs are equal to the capital costs multiplied by the capital recovery factor ( CRF). The capital recovery factor ( 0.14) was calculated using the following equation:

CRF = ( i( 1+ i) n)/(( 1+ i) n 1)

where:

° i = the interest rate ( 7 percent was used for this analysis), and ° n = repayment period ( years).

For this analysis, the interest rate chosen was 7 percent and the repayment period was 10 years, as used in the HON for storage tanks. Total capital recovery costs were calculated using:

Capital Recovery Costs = CRF *( Cconversion + Cwaste + Cdegas/ clean)

Indirect costs were calculated as 4 percent of capital costs and direct costs were calculated as 6 percent of capital costs. 2 By reducing the emissions from storage vessels, product waste is reduced and can be claimed as recovery credit. The HON background information document contains a recovery credit factor of $ 1,370/ ton of product saved. 1 0154 04 010\ HON storage vessel memo. doc 5 A summary of costs and emission reductions for all Group 2 tanks is presented in Table 3

1. A detailed summary of cost information for uncontrolled tanks is found in Attachment A 1 and a detailed summary of cost information for unspecified tanks is found in Attachment A 2.

4.0 REFERENCES 1. Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From Process Units in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry Background Information for Proposed Standards, Volume 1CModel Emission Sources, Emission Standards Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1992.

2. Alternative Control Techniques Document: Volatile Organic Liquid Storage in Floating and Fixed Roof Tanks. Emission Standards Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1994.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23807-23808]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10270]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3414-000]

Blue Canyon Windpower VI LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Blue Canyon Windpower VI LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 12, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 22, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10270 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P