ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE REVISED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE STATE OF IOWA December 2001 Prepared for:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Office of Science and Technology Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 0001 Prepared by:

Science Applications International Corporation 11251 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, VA 20190 5201 EPA Contract No. 68 C 99 252 SAIC Project Number 01 0833 04 2805 xxx December 2001 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES 1 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1.2 Purpose of this Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1.3 Scope of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1.4 Organization of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2.0 Potentially Affected Facilities and Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.1 Facilities Facing New Criteria Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.2 Facilities Facing Reclassified Designated Uses and New Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2.3 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 3.0 Methodology for Estimating Potential Compliance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.1 Facilities Facing New Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.1.1 Determining Reasonable Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.1.2 Calculating Projected Effluent Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 3.1.3 Estimating Potential Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 3.2 Facilities Facing Reclassified Designated Uses and New Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 3.2.1 Fecal Coliform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 3.2.2 Ammonia and Dissolved Oxygen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 3.3 Estimating Pollutant Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 3.3.1 Toxic Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 3.3.2 Conventional Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 4.0 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.1 Facilities Facing New Criteria Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.2 Facilities Facing Reclassified Designated Uses and New Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.3 Total Statewide Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 5.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 APPENDICES A. Cost Methodology for Toxic Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 1 B. Cost Methodology for Conventional Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 1 C. Facility Level Analyses   New Criteria Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 1 D. Facility Level Analyses   Designated Use Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D 1 E. Attainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 1 F. Revisions to Iowa WQS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F 1 December 2001 ii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 1. Pollutants for which EPA is Proposing Water Quality Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Exhibit 2 1. Facilities Facing New Criteria Only: Comparison of Universe and Sample Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Exhibit 2 2. Facilities Facing New Criteria Only: Facilities Selected for Evaluation . . . . . . . 2 3 Exhibit 2 3. Facilities Facing Reclassified Designated Uses and New Criteria: Comparison of Universe and Sample Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Exhibit 2 4. Facilities Facing Reclassified Designated Uses and New Criteria: Facilities Selected for Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Exhibit 4 1. Affected Facilities and Estimated Costs Associated with Proposed Revisions to Water Quality Criteria ( 2001 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 Exhibit 4 2. Estimated Costs Associated with Proposed Reclassified Designated Uses: Sample Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Exhibit 4 3. Estimated Costs Associated with Proposed Reclassified Designated Uses . . . . . 4 3 Exhibit 4 4. Total Estimated Statewide Costs by Provision ( 2001 $/ yr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 Exhibit A 1. Cost Decision Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 2 Exhibit E 1. Number of Samples for Each Parameter for Each Station within 15 Miles of Each Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 1 1 The 47 facilities in this latter group also are potentially affected by the new water quality criteria, but EPA believes, based on the results of its analysis, that none of the facilities in this group discharge pollutants for which EPA is proposing to revise criteria.

December 2001 Executive Summary ES 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is proposing water quality standards ( WQS) applicable to waters in the State of Iowa. This report provides estimates of potential incremental costs that point source dischargers may experience as a result of the final rule.

EPA's proposed revisions to the Iowa WQS would: 1) change or add water quality criteria for a number of toxic pollutants in receiving waters designated for aquatic life uses and in receiving waters designated for potable water supply use, and 2) assign additional or new designated use classifications to a number of stream segments in Iowa.

EPA used information provided by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources as the basis for identifying the universe of potentially affected facilities. EPA estimated a universe of 916 potentially affected facilities, including:

869 facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to water quality criteria

47 facilities potentially affected by the proposed reclassification of designated uses. 1 To estimate potential compliance costs, EPA employed slightly different methodologies and assumptions for each of the two groups of facilities.

For facilities potentially affected by the new water quality criteria, EPA identified four facilities with effluent monitoring data or existing NPDES permit limits for the pollutants subject to the criteria revisions. EPA followed a decision framework to ensure consistency in estimating the types of controls that would be necessary for a facility to comply with projected water quality based effluent limits. The underlying assumption of the decision framework is that a facility would examine lower cost alternatives prior to incurring the expense associated with adding end of pipe treatment processes. EPA estimated costs for each alternative including capital costs, annual costs [ operation and maintenance ( O& M) and residuals management], and monitoring costs.

For facilities potentially affected by the proposed reclassification of designated uses, EPA selected a random sample of 11 facilities and evaluated impacts associated with toxic pollutants using the same methodology described for facilities potentially affected by the new water quality criteria. In addition, EPA analyzed impacts associated with conventional pollutants ( specifically, fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia) for these facilities. For conventional pollutants, EPA reviewed discharge monitoring data and existing treatment systems and applied computer modeling to calculate downstream pollutant concentrations. Based on the results of this analysis, EPA made estimates regarding the need to add new treatment systems or to supplement existing treatment systems. For conventional pollutants, EPA determined the type and potential cost of December 2001 Executive Summary ES 2 treatment for the sample facilities and then extrapolated these costs to the estimated universe of affected facilities.

EPA estimated that the total statewide cost of all provisions of the proposed rule is $ 904,000 per year. In the analysis, EPA made several assumptions that would tend to err on the side of overstating costs. Thus, EPA believes the total statewide cost is a reasonable, but conservatively high estimate. Approximately 65% of the total costs are associated with the proposed revision to the water quality criterion for a single pollutant, aluminum. These costs are incurred by two minor industrial facilities. The remaining 35% of the total is associated with the proposed reclassification of designated uses. Nearly all of this 35% is associated with additional treatment for fecal coliform at minor POTWs.

These expenditures will result in annual reductions of 558 pounds of aluminum, 915 pounds of ammonia, and 2.65 x 1013 fecal coliform colonies discharged to Iowa surface waters. Aluminum is a toxic pollutant; fecal coliforms present risk of human illness associated with contact or ingestion; and ammonia has several characteristics which can be deleterious to aquatic life. December 2001 1.0 Introduction 1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is proposing water quality standards ( WQS) applicable to waters of the United States in the State of Iowa. This report presents EPA's analysis of potential economic impacts associated with the Iowa WQS rule. Specifically, the report provides estimates of potential incremental costs that point source dischargers may experience as a result of the rule through changes to their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit limits.

1.1 Background The Clean Water Act ( CWA) directs States, with oversight by EPA, to adopt WQS to protect the public health and welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of the CWA. Under Section 303, States are required to develop WQS for waters within their boundaries. Section 303( c) provides that WQS shall include the designated use or uses for the water and criteria necessary to protect those uses. States are also required to hold public hearings once every three years for the purpose of reviewing applicable water quality standards and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting standards. The results of this triennial review must be submitted to EPA and EPA must approve or disapprove any new or revised standards. Section 303( c) also authorizes the EPA Administrator to promulgate WQS to supersede State standards that have been disapproved or that the Administrator determines that a new or revised standard is needed to meet the CWA's requirements.

EPA is proposing revisions to the Iowa WQS to: 1) change or add water quality criteria for a number of pollutants in receiving waters designated for aquatic life uses (" Class B" under Iowa regulations) and in receiving waters designated for potable water supply use (" Class C" under Iowa regulations), and 2) assign additional or new designated use classifications to a number of stream segments in Iowa.

1.2 Purpose of this Analysis Under Executive Order ( EO) 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is " significant" and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the order ( drafting an Economic Analysis ( EA) and submitting it for review by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB)). EO 12866 defines " significant" as those actions likely to lead to a rule having an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.

EPA's rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities and the State has flexibility in implementing the provisions within the NPDES permit program. Although implementation may ultimately result in new or revised NPDES permit conditions for some dischargers, EPA's action does not impose any of these requirements. Nonetheless, in the spirit of EO 12866, this analysis provides EPA's estimate of the potential cost impact that may ultimately result from the Iowa WQS rule. In the absence of sufficient instream data ( see Appendix E), EPA assumed that the new uses and criteria would be attainable. December 2001 1.0 Introduction 1 2 1.3 Scope of the Analysis This analysis addresses the potential costs and pollutant loading reductions that may result from implementation of EPA's rule. Any NPDES permitted facility discharging to stream segments reclassified by the proposed rule or discharging pollutants for which EPA is proposing new or revised criteria may be affected by the rule. The types of affected facilities may include industries and publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs) discharging pollutants to surface waters in Iowa ( i. e., point sources).

Water Quality Criteria Revision EPA determined that Iowa's current water quality criteria for a number of pollutants are not protective of designated uses. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise or add criteria for these pollutants. The specific pollutants for which EPA is proposing criteria vary by designated use classification. Exhibit 1 1 lists the pollutants by classification. The proposed values for the criteria are presented in Appendix F.

Designated Use Reclassification The CWA requires the designation of aquatic life and recreational uses for all waters of the United States, where attainable, and EPA regulations require a State to submit a use attainability analysis ( UAA) for waters that it does not designate for these uses. Iowa's current regulations do not assign designated uses for a number of segments, meaning they fall into the " general use" classification under the State's regulations. EPA is proposing to reclassify these general use segments for primary contact recreation use (" Class A" under Iowa regulations), aquatic life use (" Class B" under Iowa regulations), and/ or potable water use (" Class C under Iowa regulations). Class B designations may be further specified as significant resource warm waters [" Class B( WW)"] or lakes and wetlands [" Class B( LW)"]. For other segments covered by the proposed rule, Iowa's current regulations do assign a designated use, but EPA is proposing a new or additional designated use classification. For example, for some stream segments currently designated Class B, EPA is proposing to add the designation Class A. In total, EPA is proposing to assign new or additional designated uses for 47 Iowa stream segments. Appendix F provides a list of stream segments and the proposed use designations.

1.4 Organization of the Report The report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the methodology EPA used to identify potentially affected facilities in Iowa and select a sample for evaluating cost impacts. Chapter 3 describes the methodology for estimating the potential costs. Chapter 4 describes the results of the analysis. Chapter 5 provides references and several appendices provide additional information related to the analysis. December 2001 1.0 Introduction 1 3 Exhibit 1 1. Pollutants for which EPA Is Proposing Water Quality Criteria Designated Use Classification Pollutants Aquatic Life Use: Cold Water Aquatic Life ( Class B( CW)) Aluminum Dieldrin alpha Endosulfan beta Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate Endrin Lindane Pentachlorophenol Toxaphene Aquatic Life Use: Significant Resource Warm Water ( Class B( WW)) Aluminum Dieldrin alpha Endosulfan beta Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate Endrin Lindane Pentachlorophenol Aquatic Life Use: Limited Resource Warm Water ( Class B( LR)) Aluminum 4,4' DDT Dieldrin Endrin Heptachlor Lindane Pentachlorophenol Toxaphene Aquatic Life Use: Lakes and Wetlands ( Class B( LW)) Dieldrin alpha Endosulfan beta Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate Endrin Lindane Pentachlorophenol Potable Water Use ( Class C) 2,3,7,8 TCDD ( Dioxin) alpha Endosulfan beta Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate Bromoform Chlorodibromomethane Chloroform Dichlorobromomethane December 2001 2.0 Potentially Affected Facilities and Sample Selection 2 1 2.0 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED FACILITIES AND SAMPLE SELECTION The Iowa Department of Natural Resources ( IDNR) provided listings of all NPDES dischargers in the State, along with their discharge category ( major or minor), receiving waters, and current designated use classification for the receiving waters. IDNR also identified those facilities that discharge to stream segments for which EPA is proposing to reclassify the designated use. In the listings, IDNR separated out quarries and inactive facilities.

EPA used the information provided by IDNR as the basis for identifying the universe of potentially affected facilities. EPA removed quarries from the universe because these facilities do not discharge pollutants that would cause them to be affected by the proposed rule. EPA also removed inactive facilities from the universe because these facilities do not currently discharge. Finally, EPA removed facilities that do not discharge to stream segments for which EPA is proposing to reclassify the designated use and whose receiving waters are not currently designated Class B or Class C ( i. e., whose receiving waters are of a class for which EPA is not proposing revised water quality criteria). These facilities would not be affected by either provision of the proposed rule. This resulted in a universe of 916 potentially affected facilities.

EPA used data from its Permit Compliance System ( PCS) database to categorize each potentially affected facility as a POTW or industrial facility and to categorize industrial facilities by sector. EPA then divided the universe into two mutually exclusive groups:

1. Facilities that do not discharge to stream segments for which EPA is proposing to reclassify the designated use, but do discharge to Class B or Class C receiving waters. These facilities are potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the water quality criteria, but not by the proposed reclassification of stream ( hereafter referred to as " facilities facing new criteria only)."

2. Facilities that discharge to stream segments for which EPA is proposing to reclassify the designated use. These facilities are potentially affected by both provisions of the proposed rule ( hereafter referred to as " facilities facing reclassified designated uses and new criteria)."

EPA evaluated facilities from each of these groups to estimate the potential cost impacts. The sections below describe these facilities.

2.1 Facilities Facing New Criteria Only EPA identified a total of 869 potentially affected facilities facing new criteria only. For these facilities, EPA searched its PCS database to identify facilities with effluent monitoring data or existing NPDES permit limits for the pollutants subject to the criteria revisions. EPA found four such facilities. These four facilities are likely the only facilities affected by the criteria revisions. Exhibit 2 1 shows the universe of facilities EPA identified as the facing new criteria only. Exhibit 2 2 identifies the four affected facilities by name and permit number. December 2001 2.0 Potentially Affected Facilities and Sample Selection 2 2 Exhibit 2 1. Facilities Facing New Criteria Only: Comparison of Universe and Affected Facilities Designated Use Class Facility Type Number in Universe Number Potentially Impacted1 Major Dischargers B( WW) POTW 37 0 Industrial   Food Products 5 0 Industrial   Other Manufacturing 12 0 Industrial   Electrical Generation 10 0 B( WW) and C POTW 1 0 Industrial 3 2 B( LR) POTW 24 0 Minor Dischargers All Classes POTW 590 0 Industrial   Food Products 46 0 Industrial   Other Manufacturing 81 2 Industrial   Transportation, Warehousing, Pipelines 24 0 Industrial   Electrical Generation 15 0 Industrial   Other 21 0 Total 869 4 1 Based on information in PCS.

Exhibit 2 2. Facilities Facing New Criteria Only: Affected Facilities Facility Name Permit Number Discharger Category Designated Use Class Facility Type Alcoa, Inc. IA0003395 Major B( WW) and C Industrial Roquette America, Inc. IA0000256 Major B( WW) and C Industrial Maytag Appliances Newton Laundry Products Plant 2 IA0000582 Minor B( LR) Industrial: other manufacturing Winnebago Industries, Inc. IA0067229 Minor B( WW) Industrial: other manufacturing 2.2 Facilities Facing Reclassified Designated Uses and New Criteria EPA identified a total of 47 potentially affected facilities facing reclassified both designated uses and new criteria. EPA selected a stratified random sample of 11 facilities from this group for analysis and stratified these facilities according to discharge category, designated use class, and facility type. The number of randomly selected facilities in each stratum is based on the total number of facilities of each type in the universe of potentially affected facilities. Exhibit 2 3 December 2001 2.0 Potentially Affected Facilities and Sample Selection 2 3 compares the universe and sample facilities in this group. Exhibit 2 4 identifies the sample facilities by name and permit number. Exhibit 2 3. Facilities Facing Reclassified Designated Uses and New Criteria: Comparison of Universe and Sample Facilities New Designated Use Class Discharger Category Facility Type Number in Universe Sample Size A Major POTW 1 1 Minor POTW 22 3 Industrial 5 1 A, B( LW) Minor POTW 1 1 B( WW) Major POTW 1 1 Minor POTW 13 2 Industrial 4 2 Total 47 11 Exhibit 2 4. Facilities Facing Reclassified Designated Uses and New Criteria: Facilities Selected for Evaluation Facility Name Permit Number New Designated Use Class Discharger Category Facility Type Greenfield, City of STP IA0021369 A Major POTW Cedar Falls Mobile Home Village IA0064033 A Minor POTW Grand River, City of STP IA0066346 A Minor POTW Roland, City of STP IA0032425 A Minor POTW Green Valley Chemical Corporation IA0003964 A Minor Industrial Atalissa, City of STP IA0070998 A and B( LW) Minor POTW New Hampton, City of STP IA0028525 B( WW) Major POTW Stockton, City of STP IA0033464 B( WW) Minor POTW Thompson, City of STP IA0068683 B( WW) Minor POTW Van Diest Supply Co. IA0070033 B( WW) Minor Industrial North Star Steel Iowa IA0061972 B( WW) Minor Industrial 2.3 Data Collection For each of the facilities identified in Exhibits 2 2 and 2 4, EPA obtained permit file information from IDNR and EPA's Region 7 offices. This information included copies of each facility's NPDES permit, permit application, permit fact sheet, supporting documentation, and a limited quantity of discharge monitoring data. EPA obtained complete discharge monitoring data for each facility from its PCS database. As needed according to the analytical methodology ( see December 2001 2.0 Potentially Affected Facilities and Sample Selection 2 4 Section 3.0), EPA also obtained background water quality data from STORET and stream characteristics ( flow and dimensions) from the U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS) National Water Information System ( http:// water. usgs. gov/ nwis). December 2001 3.0 Methodology 3 1 3.0 METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING POTENTIAL COMPLIANCE COSTS This chapter describes EPA's methodology for estimating potential costs and pollutant loading reductions that may result from implementation of the proposed rule. As discussed in Section 2, EPA identified two groups of facilities potentially affected by the proposed rule. The sections below describe the methodologies applicable to each group.

3.1 Facilities Facing New Criteria The facilities facing new criteria might require additional treatment for toxic pollutants. The specific toxic pollutants of concern are those for which EPA is proposing new or revised water quality criteria ( see Exhibit 1 1 for the identity of the specific pollutants). For each of the potentially affected facilities and each pollutant of concern, EPA analyzed the need for and cost of this additional treatment using the following steps:

Determining reasonable potential to exceed water quality criteria

Calculating projected effluent limits for pollutants with reasonable potential

Estimating the potential costs of required compliance actions for facilities expected to exceed their projected effluent limits.

3.1.1 Determining Reasonable Potential When a facility had discharge monitoring data for any of the toxic pollutants of concern, EPA analyzed the reasonable potential to exceed water quality criteria. EPA calculated a projected effluent quality ( PEQ) value, an effluent value statistically adjusted for uncertainty, which EPA used to estimate a maximum value. The methodology to derive a PEQ is based on EPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality based Toxics Control ( TSD) ( 1991). EPA also used the following assumptions to estimate the PEQ:

1. The coefficient of variation ( CV) is equal to 0.6 for a pollutant with 10 or fewer data points.

2. The CV is based on the log transformed effluent data for a pollutant with 11 to 20 data points.

3. The 99th percentile value of the effluent data set represents the PEQ for pollutants with more than 20 data points.

For pollutants with 20 or fewer data points, EPA calculated a reasonable potential multiplying factor ( MF) based on the 99% confidence level and the 99% probability basis. This factor is a function of the CV and the number of effluent samples. MFs for a range of CVs and number of samples are presented in Table 3   1 of the TSD ( U. S. EPA, 1991). EPA obtained the PEQ by multiplying the maximum effluent concentration ( MEC) by the MF. 2 Assuming a translator of one is a conservative assumption used to simplify this stage of the analysis. For pollutants found to have reasonable potential, EPA applied pollutant specific translators in the next stage of the analysis as described in Section 3.1.2.

December 2001 3.0 Methodology 3 2 EPA then calculated a waste load allocation ( WLA) based on the proposed chronic criterion. In calculating the WLA, EPA used 7Q10 flows for the receiving stream reported in each facility's permit file. If 7Q10 flow information was not available in the permit file, EPA calculated 7Q10 flows from monitoring data contained in the USGS daily flow file database for nearby stream gauges. When flow data was not available for a nearby stream gauge, EPA contacted IDNR to provide a 7Q10 flow. For metals, the WLAs used in the reasonable potential analysis are expressed in dissolved form ( i. e., a translator of one is used to convert criteria from dissolved to total). 2 EPA also calculated the receiving water concentration ( RWC) as the product of the PEQ and dilution ratio. EPA estimated that a pollutant has reasonable potential to exceed the water quality criterion if the PEQ exceeds the WLA or the RWC exceeds the water quality criterion.

3.1.2 Calculating Projected Effluent Limits For facilities with pollutants with a reasonable potential to exceed water quality criteria, EPA calculated projected effluent limits based on the methods recommended in EPA's TSD ( 1991) and the following assumptions:

1. Establishing water quality criteria for metals as total concentrations by multiplying each metal dissolved concentration criterion by a translator based on theoretical partitioning coefficients ( U. S. EPA, 1984)

2. Using a CV of 0.6 for pollutants with less than 10 data points 3. Calculating the CV of the log transformed effluent data for a pollutant with more than 10 effluent data points 4. Calculating long term averages ( LTA) based on the proposed water quality criteria by multiplying the WLA by WLA multipliers values ( See Table 5   1 of U. S. EPA, 1991)

5. Calculating the maximum daily limit ( MDL) and the average monthly limit ( AML) by multiplying the LTA by LTA multipliers based on the 99th percentile for the MDL and the 95th percentile for the AML ( assuming that the effluent is monitored 4 times per month).

3.1.3 Estimating Potential Costs Dischargers may be affected by EPA's action if their current permit limits or concentrations of toxic pollutants in their effluents exceed projected effluent limits. Affected dischargers would need to implement measures to reduce pollutant concentrations in their effluent. December 2001 3.0 Methodology 3 3 To estimate potential cost impacts, EPA estimated pollution control costs in situations where the MEC exceeded projected effluent limits and used the MEC as the baseline effluent quality value. However, if the MEC exceeded an existing permit limit, EPA used the existing permit limit as a baseline concentration to avoid including costs that are associated with complying with current State regulations. EPA estimated costs based on the incremental pollutant loading reductions required to achieve the projected limits.

EPA followed a decision framework based on the assumption that a facility would pursue lower cost control strategies prior to adding end of pipe treatment. This framework is presented in Appendix A. Appendix A also provides unit cost estimates for the control strategies considered.

3.2 Facilities Facing Reclassified Designated Uses and New Criteria The facilities facing reclassified designated uses and new criteria might require additional treatment for toxic pollutants and/ or conventional pollutants. EPA's methodology for analyzing the compliance cost associated with the control of toxic pollutants is nearly identical to that described for facilities facing new criteria only ( see Section 3.1). The only difference is that EPA conducted the analysis for all toxic pollutants that have water quality criteria under each facility's reclassified designated use, rather than just the pollutants for which EPA is proposing revised criteria. EPA's methodology for analyzing compliance cost for conventional pollutants varied depending on the pollutant. The specific conventional pollutants of concern are fecal coliform ( for designated use class A) and dissolved oxygen and ammonia ( for designated use class B).

3.2.1 Fecal Coliform Facilities discharging to receiving waters that EPA is proposing to designate as Class A might require additional treatment for fecal coliform. To analyze the need for and potential cost of this treatment, EPA calculated an estimated fecal coliform concentration in the receiving waters resulting from the discharge from each sample facility facing reclassification to Class A. This calculation is based on the fecal coliform concentration in the facility's effluent, the background fecal coliform concentration in the receiving stream, the facility's discharge flow rate, and the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream. EPA made the following assumptions in performing this calculation:

1. Discharge monitoring data for fecal coliform were not available for any of the sample facilities. Therefore, EPA obtained fecal coliform discharge monitoring data for similar Iowa facilities ( similar size and industry) for the last five years from its PCS database. EPA assumed an effluent concentration equal to the 95th percentile value from this data.

2. For receiving streams for which background monitoring data were not available, EPA assumed a background fecal coliform concentration of zero.

3. 7Q10 flows were obtained as described in Section 3.1.1. December 2001 3.0 Methodology 3 4 For facilities located upstream of segments that EPA is proposing to designate as Class A, EPA calculated the fecal coliform concentration at the discharge point as described above. EPA then calculated the fecal coliform concentration at the location of the segment subject to reclassification, based on the distance from the discharge point, stream temperature and velocity, and the resulting decay rate for fecal coliform. Stream temperatures were obtained from STORET, and stream velocities were obtained from the USGS National Water Information System. EPA made the following assumption in performing this calculation:

For receiving streams for which temperature was not available, EPA assumed a stream temperature of 20 degrees C ( the reference temperature in the modeling equations and approximately the average stream temperature of the sample facilities).

EPA then compared the calculated receiving stream concentration to Iowa's criterion for fecal coliform. This criterion applies from April 1 to October 31 and is 200 colonies/ 100 ml, except for waters " materially affected by surface runoff." For waters materially affected by surface runoff, facilities may not cause an increase of more than 200 colonies/ 100 ml. Waters materially affected by surface runoff could not be identified due to a lack of data. Consequently, EPA conservatively assumed that all relevant waters were materially affected. EPA calculated the in stream fecal coliform concentration, based on background and effluent concentrations for each facility and then compared this value to the background fecal coliform concentration. If any facility would cause an increase of more than 200 colonies/ 100 ml, EPA assumed that additional treatment would be needed.

For facilities requiring additional treatment, EPA determined the type and potential cost of treatment using the same methodology developed for the Agency's economic analysis of its final rule promulgating revised water quality standards for the State of Kansas ( EPA, 2001). This methodology is described in Appendix B.

3.2.2 Ammonia and Dissolved Oxygen Facilities discharging to receiving waters that EPA is proposing to designate as Class B might require additional treatment for ammonia and/ or dissolved oxygen. To analyze the need for and potential cost of this treatment, EPA performed computer modeling to calculate the maximum ammonia concentration and minimum dissolved oxygen concentration in the receiving waters resulting from the discharge from each sample facility facing reclassification to Class B. The computer model accounted for the following input data:

Effluent concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand ( BOD), dissolved oxygen, and ammonia,

Background concentrations of BOD, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia,

Discharge flow rate,

7Q10 flow of the receiving stream, and

Receiving stream depth and width. December 2001 3.0 Methodology 3 5 EPA made the following assumptions in developing the input data for the model:

1. Discharge monitoring data for dissolved oxygen were not available for any of the sample facilities. Therefore, EPA obtained dissolved oxygen discharge monitoring data for similar Iowa facilities ( similar size and industry) for the last five years from its PCS database. EPA assumed an effluent concentration equal to the 5th percentile value from these data.

2. Discharge monitoring data for ammonia were available for only one of the sample facilities. This facility's maximum observed ammonia concentrations were in excess of its corresponding existing permit limits. EPA, therefore, assumed an effluent concentration equal to the facility's maximum daily summertime ammonia limit.

3. Discharge monitoring data for ammonia were not available for the remaining sample facilities. Therefore, EPA obtained ammonia discharge monitoring data for similar Iowa facilities ( similar size and industry) for the last five years from its PCS database. EPA assumed an effluent concentration equal to the 95th percentile value from these data.

4. The maximum observed BOD concentrations at all facilities were in excess of their corresponding existing permit limits. EPA, therefore, assumed an effluent concentration for each facility equal to the facility's maximum daily BOD limit.

5. Background concentrations of ammonia and/ or dissolved oxygen were not available for some receiving streams. When ammonia data were unavailable, EPA assumed a background concentration of zero. When dissolved oxygen data were unavailable, EPA assumed a background concentration of 5.0 mg/ L ( i. e., equal to the criterion for dissolved oxygen).

6. 7Q10 flows were obtained as described in Section 3.1.1.

7. Stream width and depth were taken from nearby USGS stream gauges for dates when observed stream flows were at or near the 7Q10 flow.

EPA calculated receiving stream concentrations of ammonia and dissolved oxygen for the segment of the receiving stream subject to reclassification. That is, if a facility was located six miles upstream of the stream segment subject to reclassification, EPA used the model results for a distance six miles and greater from the discharge point.

EPA then compared the calculated receiving stream concentration to Iowa's criteria. Iowa's criterion for the Class B( CW), B( WW), and B( LW) designated use classifications is a minimum DO of 5.0 mg/ L at any time during every 24 hour period. For Class B( LW) lake designations, the criteria only applies to the upper layer of stratification. Iowa's criteria for ammonia are dependent on stream temperature and pH. Therefore, for ammonia, EPA estimated the applicable criterion using the highest summertime temperature and pH values observed for each stream in STORET. EPA selected the chronic ammonia criterion corresponding to these values. EPA estimated that additional treatment would be required for facilities if their discharge would cause an in stream December 2001 3.0 Methodology 3 6 concentration of ammonia greater than the estimated ammonia criterion and/ or an in stream concentration of dissolved oxygen of less than 5.0 mg/ L.

None of the sample facilities required additional treatment for dissolved oxygen. For facilities requiring additional treatment for ammonia, EPA determined the type and potential cost of treatment using the methodology developed for a previous analysis of potential impacts resulting from revised water quality standards ( EPA, 2001). This methodology is described in Appendix B.

3.3 Estimating Pollutant Loadings 3.3.1 Toxic Pollutants EPA estimated loading reductions as the difference between the baseline concentration and the projected water quality based effluent limit ( WQBEL). Note, however, that this convention likely results in an upper bound estimate of loading reductions because facilities typically discharge at levels below the maximum effluent concentration ( MEC). EPA estimated annual loadings by multiplying the pollutant concentration by the facility effluent flow ( in million gallons per day, MGD), a conversion factor ( 0.00834), and 365 days per year. The estimated loading reduction is based on the difference between the MEC ( or the current effluent limit if the MEC is greater than the current limit) and the projected effluent limit.

3.3.2 Conventional Pollutants EPA estimated loading reductions as the difference between the baseline concentration and the projected WQBEL. Note that this conversion results in an estimated loading reduction only because the baseline concentration is based on assumptions about discharge concentration and because the effluent limit varies by season ( and, for ammonia, by pH and temperature). For ammonia, EPA estimated loadings in pounds per year by multiplying the pollutant concentration ( in mg/ L) by the facility effluent flow ( in MGD), a conversion factor ( 8.34), and 365 days per year. For fecal coliform, EPA estimated loadings in number of colonies per year by multiplying the pollutant concentration ( in colonies/ 100 ml) by the facility effluent flow ( in MGD), a conversion factor ( 3.79 x 107), and 365 days per year. The estimated loading reduction is based on the difference between the MEC ( or the current effluent limit if the MEC is greater than the current limit) and the projected effluent limit. December 2001 4.0 Results 4 1 4.0 RESULTS This chapter presents estimates of the potential costs of EPA's rule. Appendices C and D provides the facility level analyses upon which these results are based.

4.1 Facilities Facing New Criteria Only EPA estimated that, of the four facilities believed most likely to be affected by the proposed revisions to water quality criteria, two minor industrial facilities might bear compliance costs associated with additional treatment. While the other two facilities discharge pollutants for which EPA is proposing to change criteria, EPA estimates that these facilities would not require additional treatment given existing permit limits and discharge concentrations. Exhibit 4 1 summarizes the potential treatment costs associated with the revisions to water quality criteria.

Exhibit 4 1. Total Estimated Costs of Proposed Revisions to Water Quality Criteria Treatment Costs ( Thousands of Year 2001 Dollars) 1 Total Capital O& M Total Annualized2 NaOH Precipitation and GAC $ 585.00 $ 224.00 $ 279.22 Sedimentation with Alum Addition $ 1,100.00 $ 200.00 $ 303.83 Total $ 1,685.00 $ 424.00 $ 583.05 1EPA estimated that two facilities in the universe of potentially affected facilities will incur treatment costs. 2Annual O& M costs plus capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years.

The estimated annual cost of about $ 583,000 per year is associated with additional end of pipe treatment to meet the proposed revision to the water quality criteria for aluminum. As a result of this additional treatment, EPA estimates pollutant loading reductions of 558 pounds per year of aluminum.

4.2 Facilities Facing Reclassified Designated Uses and New Criteria EPA estimated that 3 of the 11 sample facilities might bear compliance costs associated with additional treatment. While the facilities in this group are potentially affected by the new water quality criteria, EPA believes, based on its review of PCS data and the sample facilities, that none of the facilities in this group discharge pollutants for which EPA is proposing to revise criteria. Therefore, the costs estimated in this section are associated entirely with the proposed reclassification of designated uses.

Exhibit 4 2 summarizes the estimated costs for the sample facilities and Exhibit 4 3 shows how these costs extrapolate ( based on the average annual cost per facility in each category) to the potentially affected universe of facilities. December 2001 4.0 Results 4 2 Exhibit 4 2. Estimated Costs to Sample Facilities Affected by Proposed Reclassified Designated Uses New Designated Use Class Discharger Category Facility Type Sample Size Estimated Number Installing Treatment Costs ( 2001 Dollars)

Total Capital Costs ($ 1,000s) O& M Costs ($ 1,000s/ yr) Total Annualized Costs1 ($ 1,000s/ yr) Annualized Costs per Sample Facility ($ 1,000s/ yr)

A Major POTW 1 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 A Minor POTW 3 2 $ 357.97 $ 8.15 $ 41.94 $ 13.98 A Minor Industrial 1 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 A, B( LW) Minor POTW 1 1 $ 127.31 $ 1.91 $ 13.93 $ 13.93 B( WW) 2 Major POTW 1 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 B( WW) Minor POTW 2 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 B( WW) Minor Industrial 2 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1 Annual O& M costs plus capital costs annualized at 7% over 20 years.

2 One facility is required to conduct monitoring and a PMP since no effluent data exist but the permit indicates limits exist for pollutants of concern. December 2001 4.0 Results 4 3 Exhibit 4 3. Estimated Extrapolated Costs Associated with Proposed Reclassified Designated Uses New Designated Use Class Discharger Category Facility Type Number of Facilities in Universe Average Annual Cost per Facility1 ($ 1,000s/ yr) Estimated Total Annual Cost ($ 1,000s/ yr)

A Major POTW 1 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 A Minor POTW 22 $ 13.98 $ 307.56 A Minor Industrial 5 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 A, B( LW) Minor POTW 1 $ 13.93 $ 13.93 B( WW) Major POTW 1 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 B( WW) Minor POTW 13 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 B( WW) Minor Industrial 4 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total 47   $ 321.49 1 From Exhibit 4 2.

Based on this extrapolation, EPA estimated total annual costs of from approximately $ 321,000 as a result of the proposed reclassification of designated uses. EPA estimates that only one facility would require additional treatment to meet the ammonia criterion. No facilities would require additional treatment for toxic pollutants or to meet the dissolved oxygen criterion.

EPA estimates pollutant loading reductions of 2.65 x 1013 fecal coliform colonies. Fecal coliforms are bacteria that, when present, indicate contamination of receiving waters by mammalian feces, including human feces. At high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria per volume of water, there is a high probability that human pathogens ( disease causing organisms) are also present, resulting in an increased risk of disease following contact. Ingestion of high concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria can also lead directly to human illness. The reductions in the number of fecal coliform bacteria as a result of the proposed rule will therefore reduce the risk of human disease from discharge of waste from wastewater treatment facilities.

EPA also estimates pollutant loading reductions of 915 pounds per year of ammonia. Ammonia has three characteristics that affect receiving waters: 1) it is a nutrient that stimulates the growth of plants and algae, and can lead to algal blooms, 2) the un ionized portion of ammonia is toxic to aquatic animals, and at temperatures approaching 30 ° C and pH above about 7.8, a substantial portion of the ammonia is in the un ionized form, and 3) the nitrification ( conversion) of ammonia to nitrite by bacteria consumes oxygen in the stream ( and allows for the further nitrification of nitrite to nitrate which also consumes receiving water oxygen). All of these effects are generally deleterious to aquatic life. The reductions in ammonia discharges as a result of the rule will improve the quality of freshwater habitat for aquatic life, leading to more balanced aquatic ecosystems. December 2001 4.0 Results 4 4 4.3 Total Statewide Costs Exhibit 4 4 shows the total estimated statewide costs of the rule. Total costs are $ 904,000 per year. Approximately 65% of the total costs are associated with the proposed revision to the water quality criterion for a single pollutant, aluminum. These costs are incurred by two minor industrial facilities. The remaining 35% of the total is associated with the proposed reclassification of designated uses. Nearly all of this 35% is associated with additional treatment for fecal coliform at minor POTWs.

Exhibit 4 4. Total Estimated Statewide Costs of Proposed Water Quality Standards ( 2001 $/ yr)

Provision Estimated Annualized Cost 1 Revisions to Water Quality Criteria $ 583,000 Reclassification of Designated Uses $ 321,000 Total $ 904,000 1 Costs are annualized at 7% over 20 years.

EPA made several assumptions in the analysis that may affect the estimated total statewide cost. Most of the assumptions would tend to overstate the cost of the proposed rule. These assumptions are as follows:

1. Although the State has flexibility in implementing the rule, EPA assumed no regulatory relief would be afforded to these facilities. Alternative compliance options may lower costs to these facilities.

2. Discharge monitoring data were not available for the sample facilities for fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, or ammonia ( with one exception for ammonia). Therefore, EPA assumed reasonable worst case discharge concentrations for these pollutants based on observed concentrations for similar Iowa facilities as described in Section 3.2. Affected facilities may, in fact, discharge at lower concentrations than those assumed. As a result, the analysis may overestimate the need for additional treatment for these pollutants. For fecal coliform in particular, this overestimation may have a significant effect on the total statewide cost estimated, because fecal coliform accounts for nearly 45% of the total cost.

3. Iowa's criterion for fecal coliform varies depending on whether receiving waters are " materially affected by surface runoff." EPA's assumption that waters are not materially affected by surface runoff may overestimate total statewide costs. December 2001 5.0 References 5 1 5.0 REFERENCES Metcalf & Eddy. 1995. Wastewater Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. Boston, Massachusetts.

Truax, D. 1992. Optimization of Wastewater Treatment Plant Systems. Water Environment Research. 64:( 4) 400   402.

U. S. EPA. 2001. Economic Analysis of the Revised Water Quality Standards for the State of Kansas. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.

U. S. EPA. 2000. Design and Cost Estimates for Advanced Water Treatment Technologies. Final Draft. Office of Research and Development.

U. S. EPA. 1995. Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Final Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.

U. S. EPA. 1992. Standardized Costs for Water Supply Distribution Systems. Gumerman, R., Burris, B., and Burris D. EPA 600/ R 92/ 009. Cincinnati, Ohio.

U. S. EPA. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control. EPA/ 505/ 2 90 007. Washington, DC.

U. S. EPA. 1990. Optimized Water Treatment Plant Performance with the Composite Correction Program. Summary Report. EPA 600/ 8 90/ 017. Cincinnati, Ohio.

WEF and ASCE. 1991. Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. WEF Manual of Practice No. 8; ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 76. Prepared by a Joint Task force of the Water Environment Foundation and the American Society of Civil Engineers. Book Press Inc. Battleboro, Vermont. LIST OF ACRONYMS AML average monthly limit BOD biochemical oxygen demand CV coefficient of variation CWA Clean Water Act EA economic analysis EO Executive Order EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency IDNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources LTA long term average MDL maximum daily limit MEC maximum effluent concentration MF multiplying factor MGD million gallons per day NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NWIS National Water Information System O& M operation and maintenance OMB Office of Management and Budget PCS Permit Compliance System ( EPA database of NPDES permit information)

PEQ projected effluent quality POTW publicly owned treatment works RWC receiving water concentration STORET Storage and Retrieval System ( EPA database of water quality data)

STP sewage treatment plant TMDL total maximum daily load TSD EPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality based Toxics Control UAA use attainability analysis USGS U. S. Geological Survey WLA waste load allocation WQBEL water quality based effluent limit WQC water quality criterion WQS water quality standards


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21410-21411]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket Number NHTSA-2018-0015]

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation invites public comments about
our intention to request approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to reinstate an information collection. Before a Federal
agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive
approval from the OMB. Under procedures established by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies
must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information,
including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved
collections.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-
2018-0015) through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hisham Mohamed, NHTSA 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE, West Building, Room W43-437, NVS-131, Washington, DC 20590.
Mr. Mohamed's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please identify the
relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control
Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: 49 CFR 575--Consumer Information Regulations (sections 103
and 105).
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0049.
    Type of Request: Request for Reinstatement of a Previously Approved
Collection of Information.
    Abstract: This information collection pertains to 49 CFR part 575.
Part 575.103, ``Truck-camper loading,'' requires manufacturers of light
trucks that are capable of accommodating slide-in campers to provide
information on the cargo weight rating and the longitudinal limits
within which the center of gravity for the cargo weight rating should
be located. Section 103 also requires manufacturers of slide-in campers
to affix to each camper a label that contains information relating to
identification and proper loading of the camper and to provide more
detailed loading information in the owner's manual.\1\ 49 CFR part
575.105, ``Vehicle rollover,'' requires manufacturers of certain
utility vehicles to affix a label in a prominent location alerting
drivers that the handling and maneuvering characteristics of utility
vehicles require special driving practices when these vehicles are
operated.\2\ Also, as required by 49 CFR part 575.6(d)(1)(i), vehicle
manufacturers must submit to NHTSA's Administrator, prior to new model
introduction, two copies of the information specified Part 575.103 and
Part 575.105 that is applicable to the vehicles offered for sale. The
information must be submitted at least 90 days before information on
such vehicles is first provided for examination by prospective
purchasers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The requirement to provide information in the owners'
manuals of trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers and the
owners' manuals for slide-in campers is covered by NHTSA's
information collection clearance with OMB Control No. 2127-0541.
    \2\ The requirements to provide information in the owners'
manuals of utility vehicles with wheelbases of 110 inches or less
and special features for occasional off-road operation is covered by
NHTSA's information collection clearance with OMB Control No. 2127-
0541.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA estimates there are currently 17 slide-in camper
manufacturers and seven manufacturers of trucks capable of
accommodating slide-in campers complying with Part 575.103 and 18
utility vehicle manufacturers complying with Part 575.105 annually.
There is overlap between the truck manufactures that must comply with
section 103 and the utility vehicles that must comply with section 105.
Therefore, NHTSA estimates there are only 35 annual respondents. This
consists of a total of 18 manufacturers that comply with the
requirement to label trucks capable of accommodating slide-in camper
units and/or the requirement to label utility vehicles with a wheelbase
of 110 inches or less and special features for occasional off-road
operation. The additional 17 respondents are the manufacturers of
slide-in campers. While NHTSA estimates there to be 35 annual
respondents, only a small fraction would be required to submit
information to NHTSA.
    Based on prior years' manufacturer submissions, NHTSA estimates
that it will receive 15 submissions from manufacturers of trucks
capable of accommodating slide-in campers and manufacturers of utility
vehicles that are required to comply with Part 575.105 annually.
Manufacturers are not required to submit a response to NHTSA every
year. Instead, they are only required to submit information to NHTSA
when they introduce a new model or make changes to the information they
provide in compliance with Part 575.103 and Part 575.105. Of the 15
submissions, NHTSA estimates 12 of the submissions will be for the
introduction of new model vehicles. Manufacturers rarely make changes
to the information provided to consumers, but we estimate at least
three manufacturers will submit revised information each year. To
satisfy the requirement to submit information to NHTSA, the light truck
manufacturers and utility vehicle manufacturers gather only pre-
existing data for the purposes of this regulation. Based on previous
years' manufacturer information, the agency estimates it takes a light
truck manufacturer a total of 20 hours to gather and arrange data in
its proper format. The estimated annual burden for data gathering,
arranging data in its proper format and distributing it to dealerships
would be 300 hours (15 submissions x 20 hours per submission = 300
hours). Manufacturer information indicates it takes an average of
$37.00 per hour for professional and clerical staff to gather the data
and, distribute and print material. Therefore, the agency estimates the
annual cost associated with the burden hours is $11,100 ($37.00 per
hour x 300 burden hours).
    NHTSA estimates it will take an average of 18 seconds (0.005 hours)
to affix a label to each slide-in camper unit that is required to
comply with Part 575.103 and each utility vehicle that is required to
comply with Part 575.103.\3\ NHTSA estimates that in each of the next
three years 11,000 slide-in camper units and 3,000,000 \4\ utility
vehicles

will be labeled pursuant to Part 575.103 and 105, respectively, and
labeling will take approximately 1,5055 hours (3,011,000 truck camper
units and utility vehicles x 0.005 hours = 15,055 hours). At a cost of
$20 per hour, the total burden hours for affixing labels is estimated
to be $301,100 annually (15,055 hours x $20.00 = $301,100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This is based on the estimated time to affix certification
labels pursuant to 49 CFR 567. For more information, see the
information collection clearance with OMB Control No. 2127-0510.
    \4\ NHTSA's data shows there were approximately 2,430,392
utility vehicles manufactured in 2016 with a wheelbase of 110 inches
or less and special features for occasional off-road use. NHTSA's
data from its Corporate Average Fuel Economy program shows that this
figure is increasing each year. To account for this upward trend,
NHTSA estimates 3,000,000 utility vehicles will be manufactured in
the next three years that will be required to comply with section
575.105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA estimates each label costs $0.35 to print. Therefore, the
total printing costs for the 3,011,000 labels would be $1,053,850
($0.35 per label x 3,011,000 units). Therefore, NHTSA estimates the
total cost to label each slide-in camper and utility vehicle to be
$1,354,950 ($301,100 cost to affix labels + $1,053,850 printing costs).
The total cost of this information collection is $1,366,050 ($1,354,950
for labeling + $11,100 for submissions).
    The total estimated annual cost to manufacturers to comply with
Part 575.103 and Part 575.105 requirements including label costs is
$1,366,050. The annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden
decreased because the previous information collection clearance
overestimated the number of utility vehicles manufactured that require
labels pursuant to Part 575.105. Thus, the total annual cost decreased
from $2,904,336 to $1,366,050. This represents an adjustment of (-
$1,538,286). The total number of burden hours increased from 300 hours
to 15,355 because this reinstatement counts labor hours for labeling
each utility vehicle and slide-in camper.
    Affected Public: Motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 35 (18 utility vehicle and truck
manufacturers and 17 slide-in camper manufacturers).
    Frequency: Intermittently.
    Number of Responses: 15 submissions to NHTSA and 3,011,000 labeling
responses.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15,850.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $1,366,050.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information. The Agency
will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2019-09850 Filed 5-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P